ADOLFO RAMIREZ
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellate court affirmed the appellant's convictions and sentences but reversed a $700 fine and $35 surcharge. The court found that these financial penalties were improperly included in the written judgment without being orally pronounced during the sentencing hearing, violating due process.
Yes, the trial court erred in imposing the fine and surcharge in the written judgment without an oral pronouncement. The appellate court reversed this portion of the judgment.
[1] A trial court must orally pronounce discretionary fines and surcharges during a sentencing hearing; imposing such penalties only in a written judgment without individual…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“due process requires that a trial court individually pronounce discretionary fees, costs, and fines during a sentencing hearing”
Establishes the legal principle violated by the trial court's actions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted and sentenced, and the trial court included a $700 fine and a $35 surcharge in the written judgment. However, these specif…
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 Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges his convictions and sentences, arguing that the trial court erred in making certain evidentiary rulings and in denying his motion to correct a sentencing error filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). We affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences without further comment. However, we agree with Appellant that the trial court erred in imposing a $700 fine and a $35 surcharge on that fine pursuant to sections 775.083(1) and 938.04, Florida Statutes, in the written judgment when neither the fine nor the surcharge was specifically pronounced during Appellant’s sentencing hearing. See Osterhoudt v. State, 214 So. 3d 550, 551 (Fla. 2017) (explaining that due process requires that a trial court individually pronounce
discretionary fees, costs, and fines during a sentencing hearing and remanding for resentencing where “the trial court may reimpose the discretionary fine and surcharge after providing notice to Osterhoudt and following the proper procedure”); Johnson v. State, 293 So. 3d 582, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (holding that the trial court erred in imposing a discretionary fine and surcharge without an individual oral pronouncement, reversing and remanding for the trial court to “have an opportunity to orally re-impose the fines, surcharge, and costs, or strike the fines,” and explaining that “[s]hould the trial court strike the fines in an amended judgment, Appellant need not be present”). Accordingly, we reverse the fine and surcharge and remand for the trial court to have the opportunity to orally re-impose them after providing notice to Appellant and following the proper procedure. If the trial court strikes the fine and surcharge in an amended judgment, Appellant need not be present. See id. at 584– 85. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
LEWIS, OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Osterhoudt v. State, 214 So. 3d 550 (Fla. 2017)
- Correll v. Johnson v. State of Fla. (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)