CHARLES E. BLANTON, 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.
Charles Blanton was convicted of sexual crimes and challenged his convictions and sentences. The appellate court affirmed his convictions but reversed the imposition of court costs found to have been assessed without proper inquiry into his ability to pay.
The court held that the Williams Rule challenge was without merit and affirmed the convictions. However, the court held that it was error to impose the $200.00 costs without a hearing to determine whether the previously adjudicated indigent appellant had the ability to pay.
[1] A trial court errs in imposing costs pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes, without a hearing to determine the defendant's ability to pay, especially when the def…
[2] A clerk's certificate denying gain time for failure to pay costs is improper if the underlying costs were improperly imposed without a determination of the defendant's ab…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We hold that it was error to impose these costs without a hearing to determine whether this previously adjudicated indigent appellant had the ability to pay.”
Establishes the core holding that trial courts must conduct an ability-to-pay hearing before imposing costs on indigent defendants.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlanton was found guilty by jury of sexual performance by a child, capital sexual battery, sexual activity with a child, and two counts of sexual batt…
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 Ability To Pay Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
SANDERLIN, Judge.
Appellant challenges his judgment and sentences imposed after a jury found him guilty of sexual performance by a child, capital sexual battery, sexual activity with a child, and two counts of sexual battery.
Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony, in violation of the “Williams Rule.” See Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959). This point is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm his convictions.
Appellant next claims that the trial court erred in imposing costs pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). We agree. Prior to sentencing, appellant had been found insolvent on three occasions for purposes of trial. Following sentencing, appellant was adjudicated insolvent for purposes of appeal, and a public defender was appointed. At sentencing, however, the trial court imposed $200.00 in costs pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), without finding that appellant had the ability to pay, despite his presumptive indigence. We hold that it was error to impose these costs without a hearing to determine whether this previously adjudicated indigent appellant had the ability to pay. See Harris v. State, 498 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). It, therefore, follows that the clerk’s certificate which denied appellant gain time for failure to pay these costs, entered on the same day the trial court imposed the costs, was improper. But see Butler v. State, 492 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (appeal of order imposing costs pursuant to section 27.3455 was premature where defendant failed to file motion to be sentenced to term of community service in lieu of imposition of costs). Accordingly, we strike the assessment of costs, and remand to the trial court with directions to restore appellant’s gain time, and order to the appropriate community service contemplated by section 27.3455. The judgment and sentences are otherwise affirmed.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alphonso Chandler v. State, 503 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…nd sentence are affirmed. However, we do find error in the court’s assessment of $220.00 costs against appellant pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), without prior determination of appellant’s ability to pay. See Blanton v. State, 501 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We, therefore, strike the assessment of costs, but otherwise affirm the judgment and sentence. DANAHY, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.…
-
Frazier v. State, 503 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…7.3455 clearly indicates that indi-gency is to be determined at the time of sentencing and those persons found to be indigent must be ordered to serve a term of community service in lieu of the imposition of additional court costs. Blanton v. State, 501 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Lawton v. State, 492 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). As was stated in Lawton: To find, as the State would have us do, that this statute proposes payment of costs in the future and there is no requirement to determine indigency a…
-
Arnold v. State, 505 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…costs. We agree. See Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). We reverse the imposition of costs and remand in order that the state may have the opportunity to properly proceed against defendant in accordance with Jenkins. See Blanton v. State, 501 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Beahn v. State, 499 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Any failure to pay costs has not-disentitled defendant to gain time. See Atkins v. State, 506 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The conviction is affirmed. The cause is remanded for…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Alphonso Harris v. State, 498 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Butler v. State, 492 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)