DAIL BIRMINGHAM, 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.
Court reversed imposition of $200 court costs under section 27.3455 as an unconstitutional ex post facto violation when the statute became effective after the crime was committed.
Court costs imposed under section 27.3455 violate ex post facto prohibitions when the statute became effective after the defendant's crime was committed.
[1] Court costs imposed under a statute that became effective after the defendant's crime was committed violate ex post facto constitutional prohibitions.
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 intelligenceBirmingham pleaded nolo contendere to unauthorized use or possession of a driver's license in violation of section 322.212, Florida Statutes (1983), c…
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 Restrictions cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The appellant, Daii Birmingham, appeals from that part of an order placing him on probation which imposed $200 court costs against him pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985).
Appellant pled nolo contendere to an information charging him with the unauthorized use or possession of a driver’s license in violation of section 322.212, Florida Statutes (1983). He was adjudicated guilty of the offense and placed on probation. The order placing appellant on probation imposed costs in the amount of $200 against him pursuant to section 27.3455. Appellant’s crime was committed during the month of February, 1985. Section 27.3455 became effective on July 1,1985. The trial court’s imposition of these costs, therefore, violated constitutional ex post facto restrictions. See U.S. Const, art. I, § 9, cl. 3 and § 10, cl. 1; Fla. Const, art. I, § 10; Bowman v. State, 495 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); see also, Yost v. State, 489 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
We, accordingly, strike that portion of the order imposing $200 court costs against appellant pursuant to section 27.3455 and certify the same question to the supreme court that we certified in Bovman. We affirm the trial court in all other respects.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Yost v. State, 489 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Bowman v. State, 495 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)