ROBERT A. SESSION, 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 court costs under a statute enacted after the crime was committed violates ex post facto provisions.
Appellant sought to vacate a sentence that included court costs imposed under a statute enacted after the crime was committed. The trial court denied …
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 Ex Post Facto Restrictions cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
We reverse the order denying appellant’s motion to vacate an illegal sentence, (Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(a)), and vacate that portion of appellant’s sentence which imposed $200 in court costs because the imposition of these costs for a crime committed prior to the effective date of section 27.-3455(1), Florida Statutes (1985), the statute which authorizes these costs, violates constitutional ex post facto restrictions. See Yost v. State, 489 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
The State’s argument that this issue has not been preserved for appellate review because no objection was made at the time of sentencing is without merit, because, even if objection is necessary to preserve the issue for direct appeal of the sentence on the theory that the trial court must first be given the opportunity to rule on the question, that requirement was satisfied here when appellant filed a motion with the trial court to correct the illegal sentence and had his motion denied. Cf. Ivie v. State, 497 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is an appropriate vehicle for objecting to an ex post facto application of section 27.3455).
As we did in Yost, we certify to the Supreme Court of Florida the following question of great public importance:
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 OF 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)?
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Session, 509 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1987)…PER CURIAM. We review Session v. State, 497 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), to answer the certified question of whether retroactive application of the penalty provisions of section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), violates the ex post facto provisions of the United States and Florida Constitutions. Art…
-
Padron v. State, 512 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…everse this provision of the order relative to the $200 fine and the withholding of gain-time upon the following authorities. State v. Yost, 507 So. 2d 1099 (Fla.1987); Randall v. State, 497 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); [*1115] Session v. State, 497 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Moseley v. State, 491 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The matter is returned to the trial court with directions to strike the provisions in the sentencing order relating to the $200 cost imposition and denial of gain-time. Reve…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- Yost v. State, 489 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Ivie v. State, 497 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)