JIMMY THOMAS DOWLING, 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.
The court held that imposing costs under section 27.3455 for crimes committed before its effective date violates the ex post facto clause. The court affirmed the sentence but reversed the imposition of costs.
Appellant was sentenced for a crime committed in June 1984. The sentencing judge imposed court costs under section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985).…
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 Procedural Change cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a sentence and an imposition of court costs. As to the sentence, there was no error in imposing a sentence in compliance with the recommended guideline sentence as that recommendation existed at the time of the sentencing rather than at the time of the commission of the crime. The Florida Supreme Court has ruled this is not a violation of the constitutional proscription against ex post facto punishments. We follow that court. State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985). We certify to the supreme court the same question we certified in Carter v. State, 483 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
The sentencing judge erred in imposing costs under section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). In Yost v. State, 489 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) we held that a court cannot impose costs under section 27.3455 for crimes committed prior to July 1, 1985. We certify to the supreme court the same question we certified in Yost:
DOES THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 27.3455, FLORIDA STATUTES (1985) TO CRIMES COMMITTED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE STATUTE VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, OR DOES THE STATUTE MERELY EFFECT A PROCEDURAL CHANGE AS IS PERMITTED UNDER STATE V. JACKSON, 478 So. 2d 1054 (FLA.1985)?
See also Robinson v. State, 488 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The offense for which appellant was sentenced was committed in June 1984. Thus, we reverse that portion of the judgment imposing court costs. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 501 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…by exceeding the guidelines improperly. The reasons for departure are all improper: 1) the victim’s age is not proper because it is an inherent component of the crime of sexual battery upon a person twelve years of age or older, Dowling v. State, 496 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); 2) psychological trauma to a victim of a sexual crime is invalid, Lerma v. State, 497 So. 2d 736 (Fla.1986); 3) life-threatening physical force which is “not adequately or fairly reflected in ‘victim injury’ portion of scoreshee…
-
State v. Forehand, 507 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…urrent probation and time served. The trial judge listed seven reasons for the downward departure, the first three of which are invalid. See Lerma, v. State, 497 So. 2d 736 (Fla.1986); State v. Mischler, 488 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1986); Dowling v. State, 496 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); State v. Taylor, 482 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). We make no comment as to the validity of the remaining four reasons because there is no clear authority on these issues. Since it is not clear that, absent the invalid reasons…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- Yost v. State, 489 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Carter v. State, 483 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Wanita Robinson v. State, 488 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)