MERLE WARREN PASS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Merle Warren Pass pleaded nolo contendere to burglary, grand theft, and escape charges and was sentenced to imprisonment. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction and sentences but reversed the trial court's imposition of costs and fines against an indigent defendant, holding that such monetary assessments cannot be imposed when a defendant has been adjudged insolvent.
The trial court erred in imposing the $10 and $2 costs against an indigent defendant and erred in imposing the $10 fine under section 775.0835 where the offenses did not result in injury or death. These monetary assessments must be stricken from the judgment.
[1] A court errs in imposing costs on a defendant who has been adjudged insolvent.
[2] A court errs in imposing a fine under section 775.0835, Florida Statutes, when the offenses to which the defendant pleaded did not result in injury or death.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because appellant had been adjudged insolvent it was error to impose the $10 and $2 costs.”
Establishes the core holding that costs cannot be imposed against an indigent defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Pass was charged with burglary and grand theft and was found insolvent, resulting in appointment of a public defender. After initially plead…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Escape cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
Appellant, charged with burglary and grand theft, was found insolvent. The pub-lie defender was appointed to represent him. After initially pleading not guilty, appellant pleaded nolo contendere, reserving his right to appeal the prior denial of a motion to suppress. The trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of burglary and grand theft and sentenced him to one year in the county jail on each count, to run concurrently. He was also adjudicated guilty of escape and received a one year sentence to run consecutive to the sentence on the other two counts. The court ordered appellant to pay $10 to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund, pursuant to section 960.-20, Florida Statutes (1981), and to pay $2 to the Law Enforcement Training and Correctional Officer Training Trust Funds, pursuant to section 943.25(4), Florida Statutes (1981). The court also fined appellant $10 to be paid to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund, pursuant to section 775.0835, Florida Statutes (1981), under certain circumstances when injury or death results from the crime.
Appellant has several arguments on appeal. We find merit only in his argument that the court erred in assessing the foregoing costs and fine.
Because appellant had been adjudged insolvent it was error to impose the $10 and $2 costs.1 Brown v. State, 427 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA, 1983). Brown was certified to the Florida Supreme Court as involving a question of great importance. Because the offenses to which appellant pleaded nolo contendere did not result in injury or death, it was error to impose the $10 fine under section 775.0835.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED; however, the portions of the court’s order requiring appellant to pay costs and fines under sections 960.20, 943.-25(4) and 775.0835 are stricken.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur. . The $10 cost was assessed on a standard printed judgment form. There is no showing that it. was assessed under section 27.56, Florida Statutes (1981), concerning reimbursement to the county for reasonable public defender fees and costs. Therefore, we do not treat the $10 as costs which could be assessed against an indigent defendant. See Anderson v. State, 415 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 427 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Zdenka Slomovic v. McLOON, 415 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Anderson v. State, 415 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)