TED FITTE, 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 applying the 1985 statute imposing additional court costs to crimes committed in 1984 violates the ex post facto provisions of the U.S. and Florida Constitutions.
Appellant was convicted of crimes committed in 1984 and sentenced in 1985. The trial court imposed additional court costs under a 1985 statute.…
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 Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of crimes occurring between August 15 and September 13, 1984. He was sentenced for these crimes on July 15, 1985, and pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), the trial court imposed additional court costs in the amount of $200. Appellant contends that by applying the 1985 statute to his convictions for 1984 crimes, the trial court violated the ex post facto provisions of the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution. We agree.
Application of section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), requiring imposition of additional costs in the amount of $200 for the commission of a felony and providing that no gain time will accrue until costs are paid, alters a substantive right and cannot be applied retroactively. Bowman v. State, 495 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
We reverse those parts of the judgments in cases # 85-360, # 85-361, and # 85-362 imposing court costs under section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), and again certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court.
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)?
The judgments are affirmed in all other respects.
DANAHY, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Bowman, 509 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1987)…C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT and KOGAN, 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
- Bowman v. State, 495 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)