STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
JOSEPH YOST, RESPONDENT; STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER, V. MORRIS FREENEY, RESPONDENT; STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER, V. THOMAS MILLER, RESPONDENT; STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER, V. BERNARD MOSELEY, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court held that the penalty provisions of section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), which denied gain-time accrual and imposed community service for failure to pay court costs, violated the ex post facto clause when retroactively applied to crimes committed before the statute's effective date. The Court answered a certified question of great public importance regarding whether such retroactive application constituted an impermissible ex post facto violation.
Yes. The Court held that the penalty provisions of section 27.3455 (1985) violate the ex post facto clause of both the United States and Florida Constitutions when applied retroactively to offenses committed prior to the statute's effective date. The denial of gain-time accrual and imposition of community service on indigents unable to pay clearly disadvantage prisoners whose crimes predated the statute.
[1] Retroactive application of penalties for non-payment of court costs and fees, which deny gain-time accrual or impose community service in lieu of payment, violates the ex…
[2] A statute imposing penalties that disadvantage prisoners whose crimes were committed prior to the statute's effective date violates the ex post facto clause.
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“By denying the accrual of gain time to prisoners who have not paid the fees and court costs and by imposing a period of community service on indigents unable to pay the fees and court costs, the penalties clearly disadvantage prisoners whose crimes were committed prior to the effective date of the statute.”
The Court's explanation of how the penalty provisions violated the ex post facto clause by making the law retroactively more onerous.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChapter 85-213 of Florida law created section 27.3455, which imposed additional court costs for felonies, misdemeanors, and criminal traffic offenses.…
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 Community Service In Lieu Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Justice.
We review four consolidated cases in order to answer a certified question of great public importance.1 We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Chapter 85-213, section 2, Laws of Florida, created section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), setting forth provisions for additional court costs. Section 27.3455(1) sets forth a schedule of costs for felonies, misdemeanors, and criminal traffic offenses. The enforcement or penalty provisions state that
[a]ll applicable fees and court costs shall be paid in full prior to the granting of any gain-time accrued. However, the court shall sentence those persons whom it determines to be indigent to a term of community service in lieu of the costs prescribed in this section, and such indigent persons "shall be eligible to accrue gain-time and shall serve the term of community service at the termination of incarceration. Each hour of community service shall be credited against the additional cost imposed by the court at a rate equivalent to the minimum wage. The governing body of a county shall supervise the community service program. The court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of determining, upon motion, whether a person is indigent for the purpose of this section. In the event that the emergency release provisions of s. 944.598 are initiated, any inmate who would have otherwise been eligible for release under s. 944.598 shall not be denied release solely as a result of this section.
The parties agree that these penalties for non-payment were retroactively applied in trials for crimes committed by respondents prior to the enactment of the statute. In all cases the district court held that retroactive application of the penalties was a violation of the ex post facto clause in that the penalties rendered the law more onerous than the law in effect on the date of the offense. Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981). We agree. By denying the accrual of gain time to prisoners who have not paid the fees and court costs and by imposing a period of community service on indigents unable to pay the fees and court costs, the penalties clearly disadvantage prisoners whose crimes were committed prior to the effective date of the statute. We hold that these penalty provisions of the statute violate the ex post facto clause of both the United States and Florida Constitutions.
Our holding above is narrower than the certified question. The statute has since been amended by chapter 86-154, section 1, Laws of Florida, to delete the penalty provisions for failure to pay the fees and costs. Presumably, in the event of nonpayment, the fees and court costs may be reduced to a civil judgment. Respondent concedes that the statute, as amended, does not violate the ex post facto clause. We rephrase the certified question as follows and answer in the affirmative.
Does application of the penalty provisions of section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), to crimes committed prior to the effective date of the statute violate the ex post facto provisions of the Constitutions of the United States and Florida?
Petitioner state advises us that there are thirty or more cases from the district courts involving the same point of law. To the extent these cases are controlled by the ruling herein, we invite the state to voluntarily dismiss any petitions for discretionary review.
As modified herein, we approve the decisions below and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J„ and OVERTON, EHRLICH, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur. . The four consolidated cases are Freeney v. State, 493 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Miller v. State, 492 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Moseley v. State, 491 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Yost v. State, 489 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The certified question is:
DOES THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 27.-3455, FLORIDA STATUTES (1985) TO CRIMES COMMITTED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE STATUTE VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, OR DOES THE STATUTE MERELY EFFECT A PROCEDURAL CHANGE AS IS PERMITTED UNDER STATE v. JACKSON, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985)?
Yost, 489 So. 2d at 132.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (56 total)
-
Dilar S. Booker v. State, 514 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1987)…prior to July 9, 1986; such defendant would lose his ability to challenge a departure sentence based on an abuse of discretion by the sentencing judge. Our conclusion is likewise consistent with and supported by our recent decision in State v. Yost, 507 So. 2d 1099 (Fla.1987), wherein we held that the application of the penalty provisions of § 27.3455, Fla.Stat. (1985), to crimes committed prior to the effective date of this statute violate the ex post facto provisions of the constitutions of the United States…
-
Shipley v. State, 528 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1988)…may be applied retroactively. See Walker & LaBerge, Inc. v. Halligan, 344 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1977); City of Lakeland v. Catinella, 129 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1961). Such retrospective application does not constitute an ex post facto violation. State v. Yost, 507 So. 2d 1099 (Fla.1987). As to the matters of restitution and costs levied pursuant to sections 943.25(4) and 960.20, the district court ruled correctly. We approve in part and disapprove in part the opinion of the district court, and remand for further proceed…
-
Griffin v. State, 980 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 2008)…Moreover, monetary penalties have not been equated to criminal punishment. See id. Assessment of costs violates ex post facto prohibitions only when the length of an inmate’s sentence can be increased by failure to pay the costs. See State v. Yost, 507 So. 2d 1099 (Fla.1987) (noting denial of gain-time to prisoners who have not paid fees and court costs and imposing community service on indigents unable to pay the fees and costs disadvantage prisoners whose crimes were committed prior to the effective date of…
Previewing 3 of 56 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1981)
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- Yost v. State, 489 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Moseley v. State, 491 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Miller v. State, 492 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Freeney v. State, 493 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)