BRITTANY SCHRAGER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Brittany Schrager appealed her sentences in three petit theft convictions, challenging the imposition of discretionary fines and surcharges that were not orally pronounced and the imposition of excessive costs of prosecution. The court found merit in both contentions and reversed and remanded for resentencing with corrected financial obligations.
The court held that the discretionary fines and surcharges must be struck because they were not orally pronounced and would increase the financial obligation beyond what was announced. The court further held that the costs of prosecution must be reduced to the $50 statutory minimum in each case.
“Because the reimposition of the fine and surcharges would result in a greater financial obligation than orally pronounced, we direct the trial court, on remand, to strike the discretionary fines and surcharges.”
Establishes that fines and surcharges not orally pronounced must be struck, particularly when they increase the defendant's financial obligation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSchrager was convicted in three separate county court cases of one count of petit theft in each case. The sentencing orders imposed a $120.95 discreti…
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 Discretionary Fines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Brittany Schrager appeals her sentences in three county court cases in which she was convicted, in each case, of one count of petit theft. She raises two errors. First, she correctly asserts that the written sentencing orders in each case include a discretionary $120.95 fine and a $6.05 surcharge that were not orally pronounced. Because the reimposition of the fine and surcharges would result in a greater financial obligation than orally pronounced, we direct the trial court, on remand, to strike the discretionary fines and surcharges.
Second, Schrager correctly asserts that the trial court imposed $100 costs of prosecution in each case rather than the $50 statutory minimum costs of prosecution, even though the State did not request, and the Court did not announce, the greater amount. In its answer brief, the State agrees that upon remand, the trial court should impose $50 costs of prosecution in each case. On remand, the trial court is directed to reduce the costs of prosecution in each case to $50. Schrager does not need to be present for the resentencing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
EVANDER, EISNAUGLE and SASSO, JJ., concur. 2