JOHN WILLIS INGRAM, 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.
The court held that court costs should not be assessed against an indigent defendant and that fines and liens should not be imposed as conditions of parole by the court.
John Willis Ingram was convicted of robbery and sentenced to imprisonment, a fine, a public defender lien, and court costs. He appealed the denial of …
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 Fines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John Willis Ingram appeals an order entered after a jury trial which adjudicated him guilty of robbery in violation of section 812.13(1), Florida Statutes (1981), sentenced him to a fifteen-year term of imprisonment, and assessed him with a $1000 fine, a lien for the services of the public defender, and court costs of $81.
Ingram’s initial argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motions for a mistrial and a new trial due to the prosecutor’s purported reference during his closing argument to Ingram’s failure to testify at trial. A review of the record shows that this point is devoid of merit.
Ingram’s second contention concerns the assessment of the fine, lien, and court costs. The trial court erred in imposing the court costs of $81 inasmuch as he was found to be indigent prior to trial. Brown v. State, 427 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (question certified). Hence, these court costs must be stricken. The court also erred in ordering Ingram to pay the lien and fine as conditions of parole. Ferrell v. State, 437 So. 2d 782 (Fla.2d DCA 1983). The fine and lien should be paid, but not as conditions of parole. Id. The Parole and Probation Commission, not the courts, has the exclusive authority to establish conditions of parole. Id.
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. However, we remand with instructions to strike the court costs and provide that the lien, fine, and surcharge are to be paid, but not as conditions of parole.1
AFFIRMED and REMANDED with directions.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and GRIMES and LEHAN, JJ., concur. . We note that Ingram must also pay a 5% surcharge on the $1000 fine. See §§ 775.0835 and 960.25, Fla.Stat. (1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coye Elliott Boyett v. State, 452 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…ion of a probation which was now being revoked.2 We also address appellant’s argument that the trial judge erred in imposing a public defender lien as a condition of parole. We agree. A trial court may not set conditions of parole. Ingram v. State, 442 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). However, since we hold that appellant was properly sentenced under sentencing guidelines, he is not entitled to parole, section 921.001(8), Florida Statutes (1983), and the issue is moot. In view of Judge Campbell’s position and…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 427 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Ferrell v. State, 437 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)