CARLOS RODRIQUEZ, 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.
Carlos Rodriguez appealed his convictions for aggravated battery and firearm possession by a convicted felon, challenging the trial court's imposition of court costs and sentencing procedures. The appellate court affirmed the cost assessment under one statute but reversed the assessment under another due to lack of notice and hearing, and reversed the sentences for failure to provide written reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines.
The court affirmed the imposition of costs under section 27.3455 because Rodriguez waived his ex post facto challenge by failing to raise it at trial. The court reversed the costs assessed under section 943.25(8) because the trial court failed to afford Rodriguez notice and a hearing as required by Jenkins v. State. The court reversed Rodriguez's sentences and remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to provide written reasons for departing from the recommended guidelines sentence.
[1] A defendant waives the right to assert an ex post facto argument on appeal if the objection was not raised in the trial court.
[2] A trial court must afford a defendant notice and a hearing before assessing costs under section 943.25(8), Florida Statutes.
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“Appellant failed to raise this objection in the trial court; therefore, he has waived the right to assert his ex post facto argument on appeal.”
Establishes that Rodriguez waived his constitutional challenge by not raising it at trial, supporting affirmance on the section 27.3455 cost issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRodriguez was convicted of aggravated battery and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He had been adjudicated indigent on two previous occas…
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 Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
SANDERLIN, Judge.
Appellant challenges his judgment and sentences for aggravated battery and pos session of a firearm by a convicted felon. For the reasons stated below, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
First, appellant claims that the trial court erred in imposing costs against him under section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). Appellant had been adjudicated indigent on two previous occasions for purposes of trial. At sentencing, the trial court did not address the issue of court costs. Following sentencing, the judgment reflected court costs of $200. Appellant subsequently moved pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 to correct the imposition of costs under section 27.-3455. The trial court converted the $200 court costs to community service. On appeal, appellant now argues that the conversion of court costs to community service should be stricken and asserts that the application of section 27.3455 against him violates ex post facto provisions of the Florida and Federal Constitutions. Appellant failed to raise this objection in the trial court; therefore, he has waived the right to assert his ex post facto argument on appeal. See Johnson v. State, 495 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Accordingly, we affirm on this point.
Second, appellant correctly points out that the trial court did not afford him notice or a hearing before assessing costs under section 943.25(8), as required by Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). Accordingly, we strike these costs and remand to the trial court to afford appellant the procedural requirements of Jenkins.
Third, appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to provide written reasons for departure from the recommended guidelines sentence. We agree, State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985), and reverse appellant’s sentences and remand for resentencing. On resentencing, the trial court may find guidance in the supreme court’s recent decision in Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501' (Fla.1986).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DANAHY, C.J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.), J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1986)
- Johnson v. State, 495 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)