CHANDLER RICHARD LEOMBRUNO
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.
In this Anders appeal, Chandler Richard Leombruno appealed his judgments and sentences across seven cases. The court affirmed all convictions and sentences but noted a possible unpreserved sentencing error regarding a laboratory fee discrepancy in one case.
Although a possible sentencing error exists due to the discrepancy between the oral pronouncement ($100) and the written judgment ($200), the court affirmed because the defendant failed to preserve the error by objecting or filing a motion to correct sentencing error.
[1] A written judgment for fines and costs may contain a sentencing error if it reflects a different amount than orally imposed by the trial court for a discretionary fee.
[2] Discretionary laboratory fees must be orally pronounced by the trial court at sentencing.
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“Laboratory fees are typically discretionary, see Kennedy v. State, 701 So. 2d 634, 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), and must be orally pronounced, see Thomas v. State, 190 So. 3d 222, 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).”
Establishes the legal requirements for assessment of laboratory fees in sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn case number 18-CF-13870, the trial court orally imposed a $100 laboratory fee but the written judgment reflected a $200 laboratory fee. The trial c…
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 Anders Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
LaROSE, Judge. In this Anders1 appeal, Chandler Richard Leombruno appeals his judgments and sentences in seven cases. We affirm in all respects but note that a possible unpreserved sentencing error may exist in one of the written judgments for fines and costs. 1Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 - The written judgment for fines and costs for case number 18-CF-13870 reflects a $200 county laboratory fee. But the trial court orally ordered $100 for that fee.
The trial court specifically asked, "So the lab[oratory] fees, there's . . . a $100 on 1813870. There's just one $100, but it's on Counts III and IV. Right?"; the State confirmed the trial court's assumption. Laboratory fees are typically discretionary, see Kennedy v. State, 701 So. 2d 634, 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), and must be orally pronounced, see Thomas v. State, 190 So. 3d 222, 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).
Accordingly, there is a possible sentencing error regarding the trial court's assessment of a $200 laboratory fee where it orally imposed $100. See id. ("[A] review of the record reveals a possible sentencing error concerning the court's assessment of $100 in sheriff's investigative costs . . . as the court did not orally pronounce the discretionary cost at the sentencing hearing."); see also Wilcox v. State, 674 So. 2d 191, 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (remanding for the trial court to correct the amount in written order to comport with the amount it orally imposed at the plea hearing).
Because Mr. Leombruno failed to preserve this potential error by objecting or filing a motion to correct sentencing error, we must affirm. See R.L.F. v. State, 228 So. 3d 633, 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (affirming without prejudice where the defendant failed to properly preserve the sentencing error).
Our affirmance is without prejudice for Mr. Leombruno to seek postconviction relief, if possible. See id.
Affirmed. SILBERMAN and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Wilcox v. State, 674 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Thomas v. State, 190 So. 3d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)