GARY LEE BAKER, 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 reversed a trial court's order requiring appellant to pay court costs under section 27.3455, holding that applying the statute to crimes committed before its effective date violated the ex post facto prohibition.
Application of section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985) to crimes committed prior to the statute's July 1, 1985 effective date violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.
[1] Imposition of court costs under a statute that became effective after the defendant committed the crime violates the ex post facto prohibition and is invalid.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGary Lee Baker committed a crime on June 25, 1985, and was ordered to pay $220 in court costs pursuant to section 27.3455, which did not become effect…
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 Constitutional Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant, Gary Lee Baker, appeals that part of the trial court’s order that required him to pay $220 in court costs pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). While appellant raises three issues on appeal, we need discuss only one, as it is dispositive.
Appellant argues that the order requiring him to pay costs violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws (U.S. Const, art. I, § 9; Fla. Const, art. I, § 10), since it imposed a penalty that was not in effect at the time that appellant committed the offense. See Yost v. State, 489 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Appellant’s crime occurred on June 25, 1985, and the section under which appellant was ordered to pay costs (section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985)) became effective on July 1, 1985.
We agree with Yost in concluding that the imposition of costs here pursuant to section 27.3455 violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws and is, as such, invalid. See Bowman v. State, 495 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We, therefore, reverse that portion of the trial court’s order that requires appellant to pay costs and certify the following question to the supreme court as a 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 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)?
SANDERLIN, J., concurs.
RYDER, A.C.J., specially concurring.
specially concurring.
I concur with the result of this panel, but incorporate by reference my specially concurring opinion in Stone v. State, 500 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Bowman, 509 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1987)…AN, JJ., concur. * Yablonski v. State, 502 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Monroe v. State, 502 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Atyeo v. State, 500 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Fitte v. State, 499 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Baker v. State, 499 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Maldonado v. State, 498 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Bowman v. State, 495 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).…
Authorities Cited
- Yost v. State, 489 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Bowman v. State, 495 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Stone v. State, 500 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)