JAMES BOSTIC, 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.
Bostic appeals court costs and restitution imposed following his no-contest plea to grand theft. The appellate court partially reversed, striking certain court costs imposed without notice and ability-to-pay determinations, and remanding the restitution order for proper judicial determination of the amount.
The court reversed the $200 court costs assessment for lack of notice and ability-to-pay determination, reversed the restitution order and remanded for proper restitution hearing with judicial determination of amount, and reversed the $20 court costs assessment for lack of notice. The judgment and sentence were otherwise affirmed.
[1] A defendant's failure to raise an objection in the trial court generally precludes appellate review of that issue, although such a challenge may be raised pursuant to Flo…
[2] A court errs in assessing costs against a defendant without prior notice and a determination of the defendant's present ability to pay.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Appellant's negotiated plea was expressly conditioned upon an agreement by appellant to pay restitution to the victim.”
Establishes that restitution was part of the negotiated plea agreement, which the state argued justified imposition without detailed ability-to-pay analysis.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBostic was charged with grand theft on May 31, 1985, under Florida Statutes section 812.014(1). He entered a plea of no contest and was placed on prob…
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 Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) Judge.
Appellant appeals the court costs assessed against him and the order of restitution resulting from his plea of no contest to the charge of grand theft.
Appellant was charged with grand theft on May 31, 1985, in violation of section 812.014(1), Florida Statutes (1985). He entered a plea of no contest and was placed on probation in accordance with the guidelines recommendation. The conditions of probation require appellant to make restitution in an amount to be determined by his probation officer and to pay $220 court costs. Appellant raises several points on appeal.
Appellant first asserts that the trial court’s imposition of $200 court costs pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), is an ex post facto violation of the United States and State of Florida Constitutions because the offense was committed on May 31, 1985, prior to the effective date of section 27.3455. Since appellant failed to raise this objection in the trial court, we decline to rule on this issue now. However, our holding does not preclude appellant from raising this challenge pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Parker v. State, 500 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Treadway v. State, 500 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); contra Webber v. State, 497 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
Secondly, appellant alleges error in the court’s assessing $200 costs against him pursuant to section 27.3455, without prior notice and without first determining appellant had the present ability to pay. The state concedes that the court erred in this respect. Atkins v. State, 506 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Skinner v. State, 498 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Therefore, we reverse and strike the costs without prejudice to the state filing a proper motion.
Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in imposing restitution as a condition of his probation without determining that appellant had the ability to pay and in delegating the determination of the amount of restitution to appellant’s probation officer. Appellant’s negotiated plea was expressly conditioned upon an agreement by appellant to pay restitution to the victim. The state contends that because the negotiated plea was conditioned upon an agreement to pay restitution, the trial court did not err in imposing restitution as a condition of appellant’s probation.
Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1985) requires that the court in determining whether to order restitution and the amount to be assessed, consider the factors enumerated therein. However, appellant did not object below to the court’s order of restitution. Thus, appellant failed to preserve for appeal the trial court’s failure to make this determination. See Pettway v. State, 502 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Spivey v. State, 501 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
Nevertheless, we must agree with appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in delegating the determination of the amount of restitution to appellant’s probation officer. Mansell v. State, 498 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Denson v. State, 493 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); McDonald v. State, 478 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we reverse the order of restitution and remand for a proper restitution hearing with instructions to the court to set a reasonable amount.
Finally, appellant correctly argues that the trial court erred in assessing $20 court costs pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1985), without prior notice. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984); Treadway. We reverse and strike the costs without prejudice to the state filing a proper motion.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The judgment and sentence are otherwise affirmed.
FRANK, A.C.J., and SANDERLIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Las Perry v. State, 513 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…paid Bonita Beach Rental is arithmetically ascertainable, the trial court did not undertake that task. Rather, it appears from the record that that responsibility was delegated to a nonjudicial officer, a practice we have rejected. Bostic v. State, 504 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The function of determining the amount of restitution and requiring its payment rests solely with the trial court. Williams v. State, 507 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order and remand…
-
State v. Diers, 517 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…te review of other issues, see Spivey v. State, 501 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987),—we have remanded matters of this kind to the trial court when a determination of the amount of restitution has not been made by the sentencing judge. Bostic v. State, 504 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). As we stated in Shipley v. State, 512 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), it is the trial court’s obligation [*790] to fix the amount to be restituted and we remand for the conduct of a hearing for it to make that determination. Acc…
-
Brown v. State, 546 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…section 948.03(1), Florida Statutes (1987). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed but the sentence is reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court for further proceedings to determine the amount, if any, due the victim. See Bostic v. State, 504 So. 2d 794. (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); McDonald v. State, 478 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Huffman v. State, 472 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Judgment AFFIRMED; sentence VACATED; REMANDED. DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Spivey v. State, 501 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Denson v. State, 493 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Webber v. State, 497 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Pettway v. State, 502 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- McDONALD v. State, 478 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Mansell v. State, 498 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- In the Interest of J.J.C., 498 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Boston v. Antinori & Thury, P.A., 500 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Treadway v. State, 500 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)