NATHAN MCGRIFF, 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.
Nathan McGriff appealed his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea to five probation violations. The appellate court affirmed the judgment and sentence in all respects except for the imposition of court costs, which the court found ambiguously documented and remanded for clarification.
The appellate court affirmed the judgment and sentence in all respects except the costs provision. The court reversed the costs provision and remanded for the trial court to clarify whether the $750 was intended as a fine (which would be lawful as a permissible sanction for second degree felonies) or as court costs requiring proper proceeding and documentation.
[1] A court order imposing costs may be reversed and remanded if the record is unclear regarding the nature or amount of the costs involved.
[2] A trial court must clarify whether a monetary sanction is intended as a fine or as court costs when the record is ambiguous.
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“The record in this case is not clear with regard to the imposition of court costs. The court minutes dated December 29, 1987, indicate that appellant was directed to serve three concurrent three-year periods of probation after completing a one-year period of incarceration. In addition, this document reflects that a $750 fine was imposed. The fine designation appears on the same line as the "Court Costs" designation.”
Establishes the ambiguity in the record regarding whether the $750 was a fine or court costs
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcGriff entered a guilty plea to five probation violations and was adjudicated guilty of three second degree felonies. He was sentenced to one year of…
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 Fines cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
This case concerns an appeal from an order of judgment and the sentence imposed, following appellant’s entry of a guilty plea to five probation violations. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief in accordance with the requirements outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and In Re Order of the First District Court of Appeal Regarding Brief Filed in Forrester v. State, 556 So. 2d 1114 (Fla.1990), stating that he cannot advance a good faith argument that the trial court reversibly erred with respect to any matter save imposition of court costs. We agree, and affirm the judgment except as to the costs issue. On the costs issue, we reverse and remand.
The record in this case is not clear with regard to the imposition of court costs. The court minutes dated December 29, 1987, indicate that appellant was directed to serve three concurrent three-year periods of probation after completing a one-year period of incarceration. In addition, this document reflects that a $750 fine was imposed. The fine designation appears on the same line as the “Court Costs” designation. Subsequently, in a document entitled “Judgment of Guilt Placing Defendant in Community Control,” the $750 was treated, in Condition (16), as court costs. Appellant was adjudicated guilty of three second degree felonies. A $10,000 fine is a permissible sanction for a second degree felony. § 775.083(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1985). Therefore, if the $750 was intended to be a fine, it was a lawful sanction.
On the other hand, if, as the judgment indicates, the $750 was intended to be court costs, the record is unclear as to what the costs involved were intended to be.
Accordingly, the costs provision in the final judgment is reversed and remanded with directions to clarify whether the $750 was intended as a fine or as costs. If the $750 was intended as a fine, the final judgment must be corrected to reflect that fact. If intended as court costs, the cost provision is stricken without prejudice to the state to seek reassessment after proper proceeding and documentation. In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.
SHIVERS, C.J., and ZEHMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lakeside Baptist Church & Preferred Risk Grp. v. Jones, 714 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ure for adjudicating workers’ compensation claims; that is, the parties have a right to reasonable notice of the issues to be adjudicated. See, e.g., Regal Marine Industries v. Cappucci, 523 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); R. Carr Plumbing v. Bogue, 572 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (applying the principle in earlier versions of the Workers’ Compensation Law). Notice of a claim or defense is required by the Florida Rules of Workers’ Compensation Procedure, as well. Rule 4.085(b) provides that the order sett…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- In re Order of the First Dist. Court of Appeal Regarding Brief Filed in Forrester v. State, 556 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1990)