Narrative Opinion Summary
Appellant's conviction for robbery with a firearm or deadly weapon is affirmed. However, the imposition of costs against the indigent appellant is reversed due to the lack of prior notice and an opportunity to object, as well as the absence of a judicial determination regarding the appellant's ability to pay. This decision references Mays v. State and Jenkins v. State for precedent. The ruling concludes with a partial affirmation and partial reversal, with Judges Hersey, Downey, and Walden concurring.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Convictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirms the conviction of the appellant for robbery with a firearm or deadly weapon.
Reasoning: Appellant's conviction for robbery with a firearm or deadly weapon is affirmed.
Imposition of Costs on Indigent Defendantssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reverses the imposition of costs on the indigent appellant due to the lack of prior notice and opportunity to object.
Reasoning: However, the imposition of costs against the indigent appellant is reversed due to the lack of prior notice and an opportunity to object.
Judicial Determination of Ability to Paysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The reversal of costs is also based on the absence of a judicial determination regarding the appellant's ability to pay.
Reasoning: The imposition of costs against the indigent appellant is reversed due to... the absence of a judicial determination regarding the appellant's ability to pay.
Precedent for Reversal of Costssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision references Mays v. State and Jenkins v. State as precedents for reversing the imposition of costs on the indigent appellant.
Reasoning: This decision references Mays v. State and Jenkins v. State for precedent.