Navicky v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT STEVEN K. NAVICKY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Case No. 2D05-2381 Opinion filed November 22, 2006. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Ronald N. Ficarrotta, Judge. James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Douglas S. Connor, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marilyn Muir Beccue, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. In this appeal Steven Navicky claims that the trial court erred when instructing the jury on his entrapment defense. We affirm on that issue without further discussion. Navicky also complains that the court improperly taxed him with a cost pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004).1 We agree. That statute is applicable to crimes committed after July 1, 2004. Waller v. State, 911 So. 2d 226, 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); see also Cutwright v. State, 934 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Navicky's crime was committed on November 23, 2003. Accordingly, we strike the $65 court cost imposed pursuant to section 939.185, and remand to the circuit court to correct the judgment. Affirmed in part, cost stricken, and remanded. NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur. 1 Navicky preserved this issue for appeal by filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.