RAMON SESCON, 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.
Defendant was convicted of lewd and lascivious assault on a child and failure to appear. On appeal, the court found the trial court improperly imposed court costs without pronouncing them at sentencing and violated ex post facto provisions by imposing costs under section 27.3455.
The trial court erred by failing to comply with procedural safeguards established in Jenkins v. State by not pronouncing costs at the sentencing hearing. The imposition of court costs under section 27.3455 violated ex post facto provisions and must be vacated. The other costs are reversed without prejudice to allow the state to seek their imposition in accordance with Jenkins.
[1] A trial court errs by imposing court costs in a written judgment when no costs were pronounced at the sentencing hearing, failing to comport with procedural safeguards.
[2] The imposition of court costs pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), may violate ex post facto provisions of the United States and Florida Constitutions.
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“Since the court made no mention of costs during the hearing but later imposed them in its written judgment, we find that the trial court erred by not comporting with the procedural safeguards in Jenkins v. State”
Establishes the procedural error in imposing costs without pronouncement at sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was charged with lewd and lascivious assault on a child under fourteen and failure to appear. He pled no contest to the assault charge and g…
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 Lewd And Lascivious Assault cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
The state charged defendant with lewd and lascivious assault on a child under the age of fourteen years and failure to appear. Defendant pled no contest to the assault charge and guilty to the failure to appear charge. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced within the guidelines. On appeal we find merit only to his contention that the trial court improperly imposed court costs.
The court did not pronounce the imposition of any costs at the sentencing hearing. Nevertheless, the court’s written judgment imposed court costs of $400 pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985); $40 pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1985); $5 pursuant to section 943.25(4), Florida Statutes (1985); and $4 pursuant to section 943.25(8), Florida Statutes (1985). Since the court made no mention of costs during the hearing but later imposed them in its written judgment, we find that the trial court erred by not comporting with the procedural safeguards in Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984). See Arnold v. State, 505 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
We also find merit to the defendant’s argument that the imposition of costs pursuant to section 27.3455 violated the ex post facto provisions of the United States and Florida Constitutions.
The state argues that the defendant failed to preserve this issue for appeal because it was not raised before the trial court.
However, since the first mention of costs in the record is in the written judgment, it is axiomatic that the defendant could not object to something he did not know was being imposed.
Therefore, we reach the defendant’s ex post facto argument on section 27.3455 costs. This court has previously decided this issue. See Bowman v. State, 495 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Maldonado v. State, 498 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the judgment in this case imposing court costs pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). We also certify the question set out in Bowman to the Florida Supreme Court as a question of great public importance. As to the other costs imposed, we reverse without prejudice to the state to seek the imposition of these costs against the defendant in accordance with Jenkins.
SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Henriquez v. State, 513 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…. We held that since the trial judge made no mention of costs during the sentencing hearing, but later imposed them in his written judgment, the trial judge erred by not comporting with the procedural safeguards in Jenkins v. State. Sescon v. State, 506 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). In the present case, the trial judge clearly stated at the sentencing hearing his intention to impose fines, costs, and a lien for the services of the public defender. The amount of that lien was suggested by the public defende…
-
Barker v. State, 518 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…. Of course, where an indigent defendant does not have an opportunity to object because no mention of costs is made during the sentencing hearing, but costs are later imposed in a written judgment, the error may be raised on appeal. Sescon v. State, 506 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). In conclusion, we affirm the sentence imposed upon the appellant in this case. We certify to the supreme court the following question as one of great public importance: WHETHER A CONTEMPORANEOUS OBJECTION IS NECESSARY TO PRESER…
-
Piper v. State, 520 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…nder services and $20 for the crime victim fund. We therefore strike all costs other than the $70, without prejudice to the state seeking reassessment upon proper notice to the defendant. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984); Sescon v. State, 506 So. 2d 45 (Fla.2d DCA 1987). SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Bowman v. State, 495 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Quirino Maldonado v. State, 498 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Arnold v. State, 505 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)