Case Name: Richard BRISTOW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-12-08
Citations: 685 So. 2d 855
Docket Number: No. 94-00696
Parties: Richard BRISTOW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 685
Pages: 855–855

Head Matter:
Richard BRISTOW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 94-00696.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Dec. 8, 1995.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 1996.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and D.P. Chanco, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ron Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Counsel for Richard Bristow filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising five points. We find merit only in the argument that certain cost items were improperly imposed.
Bristow argues and the state agrees there was no notice or opportunity to object to the $2.00 cost imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1991). Additionally, the $33.00 cosVfine was imposed without statutory authority. We, therefore, strike these costs. However, on remand both cost items may be reimposed after notice and an opportunity to object and with citation to the appropriate statutory authority-
In all other respects, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.