WALTER REED KING, 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.
Walter Reed King appeals his conviction for conspiracy to traffic in cannabis and challenges the various fines and costs assessed against him as an indigent defendant. The appellate court affirmed his conviction and sentence but struck certain costs and fines that were imposed without proper notice or statutory authorization.
The court affirmed King's conviction and sentence, but struck: (1) the $500 court costs because King was adjudged insolvent; (2) the assessments under sections 960.20 and 943.25(4) because King received no notice and opportunity to object; and (3) the $10 fine under section 775.0835 because the statute requires the crime to result in injury or death, which did not occur here. The $10,000 fine was upheld, though the court noted that if King cannot pay it, no alternative sentence of imprisonment may be imposed.
[1] A defendant's indigency alone does not invalidate a lawfully imposed fine.
[2] A court may not impose an alternative sentence of imprisonment for a defendant's inability to pay a fine.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“However, we hasten to point out that if King is financially unable to pay the fine, the court may not impose an alternative sentence of imprisonment for his failure to pay.”
Establishes that indigent defendants cannot face imprisonment as punishment for inability to pay fines, a constitutional protection from Tate v. Short.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKing was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in cannabis and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. He was declared indigent both before trial and fo…
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.
SCHEB, Judge.
Walter Reed King was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in cannabis and was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. He was declared indigent prior to trial and subsequently for the purpose of appeal. Along with his term of imprisonment, the trial court also ordered King to pay a fine of $10,000 and assessed the following costs and fine against him: court costs of $500; $10 pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1981) (Crimes Compensation Trust Fund); $2 pursuant to section 943.-25(4) (Law Enforcement Training and Correctional Officer Training Trust Fund); and $10 pursuant to section 775.0835 (optional fine for Crimes Compensation Trust Fund).
On appeal King challenges the fines and costs imposed on the ground that he was indigent at the time of sentencing.
The mere fact of King’s indigency is no basis for challenging the $10,000 fine. Nash v. State, 434 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). However, we hasten to point out that if King is financially unable to pay the fine, the court may not impose an alternative sentence of imprisonment for his failure to pay. Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971); Rollins v. State, 299 So. 2d 586 (Fla.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1009, 95 S.Ct. 328, 42 L.Ed.2d 283 (1974); Dunn v. State, 247 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971).
The assessment of costs under sections 960.20 and 943.25(4) would be permissible if King was first given adequate notice of such assessment and full opportunity to object. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). Where no prior notice has been given, this court has stricken the assessment of such costs. Kerney v. State, 445 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Here, nothing in the record indicates that King was given notice and an opportunity to object to the assessment of costs under sections 960.20 and 943.25(4). Accordingly, the assessment of these costs was inappropriate and is hereby stricken. Our decision is without prejudice to the state to tax these costs in accordance with the procedure outlined in Jenkins. See also Williams v. State, 445 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
The trial court also erred in imposing the $500 court costs against King since he had been adjudged insolvent. Cox v. State, 334 So. 2d 568 (Fla.1976); Brown v. State, 427 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Accordingly, the assessment of this cost is stricken.
Finally, we address the fine assessed under section 775.0835, which authorizes the court to order an optional fine, not to exceed $10,000, payable to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund. However, such a fine may be ordered only if the crime pled to, or convicted of, is a felony or misdemeanor which results in the injury or death of another person. Because King was convicted of a felony which did not result in the personal injury or death of another person, the court was not authorized under the statute to order such a fine. Moore v. State, 422 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Accordingly, we strike the $10 fine imposed pursuant to section 775.0835.
We have examined all other points raised by King and find them to be without merit. Therefore, in all other respects, we affirm his judgment and sentence.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Woolley v. State, 459 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…t the written judgment shows an imposition of $50.00 in costs. The written judgment should be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence. Finally, defendant relies upon Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984), and King v. State, 445 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), for his contention that because he was not given notice of the court’s intention to impose court costs and an opportunity to object, those costs should be stricken. However, those cases involved indigents, and defendant had not b…
Authorities Cited (14 total)
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1971)
- COX v. State, 334 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1976)
- Brown v. State, 427 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Petty v. United States, 419 U.S. 1009 (U.S. 1974)
- Rollins v. Florida, 419 U.S. 1009 (U.S. 1974)
- Rollins v. State, 299 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1974)
- Alphonso Williams v. State, 445 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Nash v. State, 434 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Kerney v. State, 445 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)