JOSEPH DOMENICK BUSTOS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 2d DCA | 2022-11-16
No. 21-2485
Atkinson, J., Sleet, J., Labrit, J.
351 So. 3d 180 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2022)

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.

Synopsis

Joseph Domenick Bustos appealed his child abuse conviction and sentence, challenging investigative costs awarded at sentencing. The court reversed a $3 discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of investigative costs ($382.85) and the written judgment ($385.85), finding the written sentence illegal when it conflicted with the trial court's oral ruling.


Holding

The court held that the sentence was illegal because the written judgment's award of $385.85 in investigative costs did not conform to the trial court's oral ruling of $382.85. A written sentence that conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence imposed in open court is an illegal sentence.


Headnotes

[1] A written sentence that conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence imposed in open court is an illegal sentence.

[2] Convicted persons are liable for payment of the costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies.

Previewing 2 of 3 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

Key Quotes

“convicted persons are liable for payment of the costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies”

Establishes the statutory basis for imposing investigative costs on convicted defendants under Florida Statutes section 938.27(1)

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Bustos pleaded guilty to child abuse pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. At sentencing, the trial court orally imposed investigative costs of $38…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Labrit

ATKINSON, Judge. Joseph Domenick Bustos appeals from the judgment and sentence for child abuse entered following a negotiated plea agreement. His sentence provides for investigative costs of $385.85.

But at the hearing, the court indicated that it was imposing "$382.85 investigative costs to the Polk County Sheriff's Office." During the pendency of this appeal, Bustos filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), which the trial court denied, and we reverse as to one of the two items in the monetary obligations order that Bustos challenged—the $3 discrepancy between the amount set forth in the affidavit and the amount in the judgment as it relates to the investigation costs.

Pursuant to section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2019), "convicted persons are liable for payment of the costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies." The plea form in the record indicates that Bustos agreed to pay only established investigative costs in the amount of $382.85, an amount reflected by the affidavit submitted by the State in response to Bustos' motion to correct sentencing error. Because the award of $385.85 did not conform to the trial court's oral ruling of "$382.85 investigative costs to the Polk County Sheriff's Office," the sentence is illegal. See Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600, 603 (Fla. 2007) ("[W]e have determined that a written

sentence that conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence imposed in open court is an illegal sentence."). Accordingly, we remand for entry of a corrected judgment and sentence consistent with this opinion. However, we affirm Bustos's conviction and sentence in all other respects. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. SLEET and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw