DAVID MICHAEL SUMMERSON
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 reviewed a DUI conviction and sentence. It affirmed the conviction but reversed a portion of the sentence regarding probation costs due to the trial court's failure to orally pronounce the amount, remanding for correction.
The appellate court found no error in the denial of the motion to suppress. However, it held that the trial court erred by imposing a $50.00 per month probation cost without oral pronouncement, as only the statutory minimum of $40.00 could be imposed in such a case.
[1] A motion to correct a sentencing error filed while an appeal is pending is deemed denied by operation of law if the trial court fails to rule on it within sixty days.
[2] When a trial court fails to orally pronounce the amount of a probation supervision cost for misdemeanor probation, the court is only authorized to impose the statutory mi…
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“While this appeal was pending, Summerson also filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).”
Establishes the procedural basis for the sentencing error claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Michael Summerson was convicted of DUI and appealed, arguing the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence. He also filed a m…
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 Appeal Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
MIZE, J.
Appellant, David Michael Summerson (“Summerson”), appeals his conviction and sentence for driving under the influence.1 Summerson argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress certain evidence.2 While this appeal was pending, Summerson also filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). In the motion to correct sentencing error, Summerson argued, among other things, that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay $50.00 per month towards the cost of his probation because the trial court failed to orally pronounce the amount of the probation cost at his sentencing.
The trial court did not rule on the motion to correct sentencing error within sixty days and it was therefore deemed denied by the passage of time. See Staples v. State, 277 So. 3d 714, 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2)(B), if a trial court does not rule on a motion to correct a sentencing error filed while an appeal is pending within sixty days, the motion shall be deemed denied.” (quoting Sirmons v. State, 264 So. 3d 958, 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019))).
As to the monthly probation cost, the State concedes that the trial court did not orally pronounce a probation cost of $50.00 per month at Summerson’s sentencing. When a trial court fails to orally pronounce the amount of a probation supervision cost for misdemeanor probation at a defendant’s sentencing, the court is only authorized to impose the minimum cost of $40.00 per month required by statute. See Paris v. State, 337 So. 3d 2, 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).
Therefore, we reverse the portion of Summerson’s sentence imposing the probation cost of $50.00
per month and remand this case to the trial court to impose a probation cost of $40.00 per month. As to the trial court’s rulings on the remainder of the motion to correct sentencing error and on the motion to suppress, we find no error and affirm. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED for further proceedings. TRAVER, C.J., and WOZNIAK, J., concur. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Victoria Rose Cordero, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jafet Manuel Andrillon v. State, 398 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)…d its judgment assessing court costs. Although the trial court did enter an order granting Andrillon’s motion, it did not do so within sixty days of the motion. Resultingly, under this rule, the motion is deemed denied, see Summerson v. State, 374 So. 3d 898, 899 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (recognizing that under rule 3.800(b)(2), when the trial court does not rule on the motion to correct ---PAGE 3--- 3 sentencing error within sixty days it is deemed denied by the passage of time); and the order is a nul…
-
Williams v. State, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2249 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)…illiams’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion; however, it did not do so within sixty days from when Williams filed the motion. Resultingly, by law, the motion is deemed denied; and the order granting Williams’s motion is a nullity. See Summerson v. State, 374 So. 3d 898, 899 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (“The trial court did not rule on the [rule 3.800(b)(2)] motion to correct sentencing error within sixty days and it was therefore deemed denied by the passage of time.”) (citation omitted); Andrillon v. State, 49 Fla. L.…
-
Green v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)…Green preserved this error for appellate review with a timely filed Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion. The motion was deemed denied when no order was entered within sixty days of the motion being filed. See Summerson v. State, 374 So. 3d 898, 899 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Abernathy v. State, 337 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
- Sirmons v. State, 264 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
- Summerson v. State, 277 So. 3d 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)