JERRY W. JOHNSON, 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.
Johnson challenged an amended sentence that imposed $4,500 in court costs as a condition of probation, arguing it improperly enhanced his punishment. The court affirmed the sentence and certified to the Florida Supreme Court whether imposing costs as a probation condition constitutes an impermissible enhancement of punishment.
The imposition of costs as a condition of probation without any increase in the term of jail or prison time is not an impermissible enhancement of punishment. The court affirmed the amended sentence.
[1] Imposing court costs as a condition of probation in an amended sentence does not constitute an impermissible enhancement of punishment when the term of incarceration rema…
[2] A trial court may amend a sentence to include financial obligations such as court costs, public defender fees, and investigatory fund contributions as conditions of proba…
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 find the imposition of costs as a condition of probation without any increase in the term of jail or prison time is not an impermissible enhancement of punishment.”
The court's holding that financial conditions on probation do not constitute impermissible sentence enhancements in the absence of increased incarceration.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson was convicted of cocaine sale in 1982 and sentenced to four years incarceration. After his conviction was affirmed on appeal, he filed a motio…
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 Enhancement Of Punishment cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order denying his motion to correct sentence to eliminate the financial requirements of probation. Appellant contends imposition of $4,500 in court costs as a condition of probation in his amended sentence was improper where those costs were not assessed in the original sentence. We affirm, finding that imposition of costs in the amended sentence was not an improper enhancement of punishment.
Appellant on December 15,1982 was convicted of the sale or delivery of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes, and sentenced to four years incarceration. He appealed the conviction, and this court affirmed. Appellant then filed a motion to reduce sentence, which the lower court granted, reducing the sentence to five years probation with the special condition that appellant serve 12 months in the county jail and pay $1,300 in court costs, $2,000 in public defender fees, and $1,200 to the Sheriff's Investigatory Fund. Appellant filed a motion to correct sentence, alleging that he was not given credit for three days of jail time served. The court granted the motion. Appellant filed a second motion to correct sentence, alleging the imposition of $4,500 in court costs in the amended sentence improperly increased his sentence.
Florida courts have found impermissible enhancements of punishment where the trial court increased a term of jail or prison time. Farber v. State, 409 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Frederick v. State, 405 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Royal v. State, 389 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Gonzalez v. State, 384 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); and Solomon v. State, 341 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). We find the imposition of costs as a condition of probation without any increase in the term of jail or prison time is not an impermissible enhancement of punishment.
As a matter of great public importance, we certify to the Florida Supreme Court, pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.125, the following question:
IS THE IMPOSITION OF COURT COSTS AS A CONDITION OF PROBATION IN AN AMENDED SENTENCE AN IMPERMISSIBLE ENHANCEMENT OF PUNISHMENT?
ZEHMER, J., and HALL, J. LEWIS, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffin v. State, 980 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 2008)…nd court costs and imposing community service on indigents unable to pay the fees and costs disadvantage prisoners whose crimes were committed prior to the effective date of the statute, in violation of ex post facto prohibitions); Johnson v. State, 502 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (holding imposition of costs of probation, without any increase in jail or prison time, not an impermissible enhancement of punishment); but see Hayden v. State, 753 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding cost assessment for juve…
-
Ridgeway v. State, 892 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…nd court costs and imposing community service on indigents unable to pay the fees and costs disadvantage prisoners whose crimes were committed prior to the effective date of the statute, in violation of ex post facto prohibitions); Johnson v. State, 502 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (holding imposition of costs of probation, without any increase in jail or prison time, not an impermissible enhancement of punishment); but see Hayden v. State, 753 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding cost assessment for juve…
-
Regueiro v. State, 619 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…ined that Morganti’s second resentence of five and one-half years imprisonment, eighteen months probation, and a $10,000 fine clearly was not more severe than his first resentence of fifteen years in prison. Id. at 821-22. See also Johnson v. State, 502 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (imposition of costs of probation was not an enhancement on resentencing despite the fact that original sentence did not have probation term); but see Kirkland v. State, 575 So. 2d 1315 (Fla.2d DCA 1991) (increase in amount of re…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Farber v. State, 409 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Solomon v. State, 341 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Royal v. State, 389 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Fuse v. State, 384 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Frederick v. State, 405 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)