CLIFFORD WEBBER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1986-11-20
No. 86-243
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.
497 So. 2d 995 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1986) Negative Treatment
Cited by 20 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that imposing costs under a statute enacted after the crime was committed violates ex post facto provisions, and such illegal sentences can be raised on appeal even without objection.

Facts & Procedural History

Defendant was convicted of crimes committed before the effective date of section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), which imposed costs. The trial cour…

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.

Topics
Ex Post Facto Clause Illegal Sentence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ex Post Facto Clause cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
ORFINGER, Judge.

ORFINGER, Judge.

We affirm appellant’s conviction on the ground that the evidence sufficiently supports the jury’s finding of guilt and no reversible trial error is made to appear. The imposition of $200 in costs pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), violates constitutional ex post facto restrictions because the crimes for which defendant was convicted were committed prior to the effective date of the statute, and thus were illegally imposed. Freeney v. State, 493 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Yost v. State, 489 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). We consider this to be the type of sentencing error which may be raised on appeal notwithstanding the defendant’s failure to object at sentencing because it results in an illegal sentence. State v. Whitfield, 487 So. 2d 1045 (Fla.1986). Contra, Slaughter v. State, 493 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Johnson v. State, 495 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 3, 1986).

We therefore strike from the sentence the imposition of $200 in costs. Except as to these costs, the sentence is otherwise affirmed. As we did in Yost, we certify to the supreme court 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)?

JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; COSTS STRICKEN.

DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Harriel v. State, 520 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1988)
    …PER CURIAM. We have for review Harriel v. State, 508 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), because of express and direct conflict with Ramsey v. State, 507 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), and Webber v. State, 497 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), approved, 509 So. 2d 926 (Fla.1987). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. The district court held that the petitioner could not attack on appeal the imposition of costs assessed un…
  • Williams v. State, 516 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
    …t being convicted of a crime that never occurred is error of such fundamental nature as is correctable on appeal without an objection below (see Givens v. State, 501 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 999 (Fla.1987); Webber v. State, 497 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), approved, 509 So. 2d 926 (Fla.1987)), and must be reversed “in the interest of justice” (see Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1981), affirmed, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982)). Alternatively, if necessary…
  • Alphonso Harris v. State, 498 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
    …onse, the state argued, among other things, that appellant could not raise the ex post facto issue on appeal since he had failed to raise it before the trial court. See Slaughter v. State, 493 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); contra Webber v. State, 497 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (violation of constitutional ex post facto restrictions resulting in illegal sentence is the type of sentencing error which may be raised on appeal notwithstanding the defendant’s failure to object at sentencing). Because it was…

Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw