BYRON CLINGER, 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.
The court held that when a trial court withholds imposition of sentence and places a defendant on probation under Florida law, the defendant is not a "convicted person" under the statute requiring costs of prosecution to be entered in a judgment. However, the court may still impose costs of prosecution as a discretionary condition of probation.
A defendant whose sentence is stayed and withheld is not a "convicted person" and no judgment of conviction is rendered, so costs cannot be mandatorily imposed under section 939.01(1). However, the trial court has discretion under section 948.03(7) to impose costs of prosecution as a condition of probation, absent statutory or constitutional prohibition.
[1] A defendant is not a "convicted person" for the purpose of including costs of prosecution in a judgment when imposition of sentence has been stayed and the defendant plac…
[2] Costs of prosecution cannot be included in a judgment against a defendant when adjudication of guilt is withheld and no judgment of conviction is entered.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the defendant is not adjudicated guilty and no judgment of conviction is entered against the defendant when the imposition of sentence is stayed and withheld and the defendant is placed on probation or community control under section 948.01(3), Florida Statutes”
Establishes that withholding adjudication prevents the defendant from being a "convicted person" subject to mandatory cost assessment under section 939.01(1)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceByron Clinger was placed on probation or community control with imposition of sentence stayed and withheld under section 948.01(3), Florida Statutes. …
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 Withholding Adjudication Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
This appeal poses the following question: When imposition of sentence upon a defendant has been stayed and withheld, and the defendant placed on probation or community control as permitted by section 948.01(3), Florida Statutes, is the defendant a “convicted person” within the meaning of section 939.01(1), Florida Statute, which provides that the “costs of prosecution ... shall be included and entered in the judgment rendered against the convicted person”?
Notwithstanding that for some limited purposes (i.e., for the purposes of sentencing under the guidelines, under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure S.TOl.d^.1) conviction means a determination of guilt, whether or not adjudication was withheld, the defendant is not adjudicated guilty and no judgment of conviction is entered against the defendant when the imposition of sentence is stayed and withheld and the defendant is placed on probation or community control under section 948.01(3), Florida Statutes. That being true, no costs of prosecution can be included and entered in the judgment against such person because no judgment is rendered and the defendant is not a “convicted person” within the statute.
However, this appeal poses a further relevant question: Does the sentencing court have the discretion under section 948.03(7), Florida Statutes, to require the defendant to pay the costs of prosecution as a term or condition of probation? The only statutory limit provided in section 948.03(7), Florida Statutes, is that if the court withholds adjudication of guilt, any period of incarceration imposed as a condition of probation or community control cannot exceed 364 days in certain facilities.
Under section 948.011, Florida Statutes, a court may withhold an adjudication of guilt and place a defendant on probation and still, in its discretion, impose a fine. If a trial court can, in its discretion, impose a fine when adjudication is withheld, under section 948.03(7), Florida Statutes, it should be able to require the payment of costs of prosecution as a condition of probation in the absence of some statutory or constitutional prohibition.2 The payment of the costs of prosecution, like the payment of a fine, can have a rehabilitative effect on the defendant and such costs arise from the commission of an offense and are therefore reasonably related to it. Accordingly, the imposition of costs of prosecution as a condition of probation, even when the court withholds adjudication of guilt, is valid under section 948.03(7), Florida Statutes, although not mandated under section 939.01(1), Florida Statutes.
The order imposing costs of prosecution as a condition of probation is
AFFIRMED.
COBB and DANIEL, JJ., concur. . See Ryals v. State, 516 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
. See State v. Byrd, 378 So. 2d 1231 (Fla.1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…s case. His adjudication was withheld. Accordingly, costs of prosecution cannot be imposed directly under section 939.01 because that section only authorizes costs upon conviction. Knaus v. State, 608 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Clinger v. State, 533 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Nevertheless, a trial court may impose comparable costs as a special condition of probation under section 948.03(5), Florida Statutes (1991). Knaus, 608 So. 2d at 558; Clinger, 533 So. 2d at 316. A special condition of probation…1 / 2
-
State v. Keirn, 720 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…d Laws 1914); Childers v. Dep’t ofEnvtl. Protection, 696 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (construing § 370.092(8)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995)); Castillo v. State, 590 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (construing § 790.23, Fla. Stat. (1989)); Clinger v. State, 533 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (construing § 939.01(1), Fla. Stat. (1987)); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.670. Where the statutory context requires it, the term “conviction” has been construed broadly to include dispositions where there has been no adjudication of guilt. C…
-
Davis Smith, Jr. v. State, 543 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…9.01(1), Florida Statutes, to enter a judgment for the costs of prosecution against the defendant as a convicted person notwithstanding that formal adjudication of guilt was withheld pursuant to section 948.01(3), Florida Statutes. Clinger v. State, 533 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). However, under this statutory authority, the state attorney must demonstrate the amount of the cost of prosecution (§ 939.01(6), Fla.Stat.) and the trial court must consider the financial resources of the defendant (§ 939.01(5),…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Arsoreda Byrd, 378 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 1979)
- Ryals v. State, 516 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)