ARTHUR SCURRY, JR., 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.
Arthur Scurry, Jr. appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual battery with slight force, challenging both the evidentiary ruling at trial and various sentencing components. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reversed portions of the sentence, striking restitution and certain fees imposed without proper notice and hearing.
The court affirmed the conviction and the $1,050 fine. The court reversed the imposition of restitution and fees/court costs because, under the 1983 version of the restitution statute applicable to crimes committed in August 1984, notice and hearing were required before such sums could be imposed. The court held that imposing both a fine and restitution was not erroneous as a matter of law.
[1] Any error in impeaching a witness with a prior inconsistent statement is harmless if other sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict.
[2] A trial court may impose a monetary fine as a penalty in addition to a prison term.
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“if there was any error it was harmless because of other sufficient evidence upon which the jury could return a verdict of guilt”
Establishes the harmless error analysis for the impeachment issue
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScurry was convicted of sexual battery with slight force. At trial, the state impeached its own witness with a prior inconsistent statement, which def…
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
RYDER, Chief Judge.
Arthur Scurry, Jr. appeals his conviction and sentence for sexual battery with slight force. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Appellant argues in his first point on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to sustain defense objections to the state’s impeachment of its own witness with a prior inconsistent statement. Without determining the substantive merits of this issue, we find that if there was any error it was harmless because of other sufficient evidence upon which the jury could return a verdict of guilt. Mohorn v. State, 462 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
Appellant next challenges the court’s imposition of a $1,050.00 fine, the order that appellant make restitution to the worker’s compensation carrier of the employer of the victim, and the order to make a $15.00 payment to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund under section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1983). We also note that the court ordered appellant to pay $2.00 in court costs under section 943.25(4), Florida Statutes (1983).
The trial court did not err in imposing a $1,050.00 fine as part of appellant’s sentence. Section 775.083(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1983), expressly authorizes the court to levy such a fine as a penalty in addition to any prison term a court may impose. See also 960.25, Fla.Stat. (1983). Nash v. State, 434 So. 2d 33, 34 (Fla. 2d DCA), petition for review denied, 438 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1983).
However, the trial court did err in imposing restitution under section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1983), without notice and an opportunity to be heard. We recognize that advance notice and hearing before the imposition of restitution is no longer required under section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.), which became effective October 1, 1984. However, appellant committed his crime in August of 1984, therefore the 1983 version of section 775.089, which requires notice and hearing, applies to this case. See Gilford v. State, 487 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Likewise, the court erred by imposing fees and costs under sections 960.20 and 943.25(4). Appellant had been declared indigent, and therefore was entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard before the imposition of these sums. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984); Mims v. State, 470 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Hankerson v. State, 464 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
Lastly, the court’s imposition of both a fine, to be paid to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund, and restitution to the worker’s compensation carrier was not erroneous. Section 960.13, Florida Statutes (1983), provides that any award made from the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund will be reduced by any amount a claimant receives from a worker’s compensation award. This does not mean that a court cannot impose a fine as part of the penalty for conviction and also order restitution.
Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s conviction but reverse the imposition of restitution and fees and court costs under sections 960.20 and 943.25(4). Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
SCHEB and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. State, 490 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…nstant offenses for which convictions have not been obtained.” The trial court may not speculate as to all the charges for which a defendant might have been convicted and use that speculation as reason to depart from the guidelines. Scurry v. State, 490 So. 2d 223 (Fla.1986). Since the trial court did just that, departure from the guidelines was improper. For the foregoing reasons, this case is remanded for resentencing. The trial court may consider sentencing defendant as an habitual offender so long as the…
-
Gordon v. State, 524 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…erse that part of the appellant’s sentence imposing restitution. The appellant’s offense was committed pri- or to October 1, 1984, so that the 1983 version of the restitution statute applies to his case. § 775.089, Fla.Stat. (1983); Scurry v. State, 490 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Under the 1983 statute, the appellant was entitled to notice and hearing before the imposition of restitution. Scurry. In this case the trial judge ordered the restitution at sentencing without prior notice and a hearing, but he…
-
Norberto Quito v. Compania de Vapores Ocean Breeze S.A., 743 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…mpetent evidence; and that the claimed error was harmless at best. See § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (1995); Stecher v. Pomeroy, 253 So. 2d 421, 422 (Fla.1971); Chrysler v. Department of Prof'l Reg., 627 So. 2d 31, 34-35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Scurry v. State, 490 So. 2d 223, 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Arlen House E., Inc. v. Lowenstern, 364 So. 2d 87, 88 [*1179] (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). We therefore affirm the judgment under review. Affirmed. GREEN and SORONDO, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Porter Hankerson v. State, 464 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Nash v. State, 434 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Gilford v. State, 487 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Mohorn v. State, 462 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Wheelock J. Mims v. State, 470 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Setko Fasteners, Inc. v. Kuester, 470 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)