SIDNEY OLLIE GIBSON, 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.
Gibson, an indigent defendant, successfully appealed his conviction and had his unlawful sentence vacated. At resentencing, the trial court imposed fines expressly stated to be retaliation for the cost of his appeal. The appellate court held that penalizing a defendant for successfully appealing an unlawful sentence violates due process and struck the fines with prejudice.
A trial court may not impose fines on a defendant as punishment for successfully appealing an unlawful sentence, as this violates due process and constitutional protections afforded to indigent appellants. The fines must be struck with prejudice to prevent reimposition.
[1] A trial court cannot penalize an indigent defendant for exercising the constitutional right to appeal an unlawful sentence.
[2] Imposing fines on a defendant to recoup the costs incurred by the county due to the trial court's own errors in sentencing violates due process.
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“An indigent defendant has a constitutional right to "have his court costs, including the cost of his transcript, paid for by the government...."”
Establishes the constitutional protection for indigent appellants' access to appeals without financial burden.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGibson was adjudged guilty in two consolidated cases. His sentence departed from sentencing guidelines for three reasons, all of which were found inva…
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 Departure From Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Chief Judge.
Gibson is an indigent who was adjudged guilty in two cases which were consolidated for trial. The trial court departed from the guidelines for three reasons. Two reasons were found invalid by this court in Gibson v. State, 519 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In answer to a certified question from this court, the supreme court found the third reason invalid in Gibson v. State, 553 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1989).
At resentencing Gibson was sentenced within the guidelines. At the sentencing hearing the trial court asked the prosecutor what Gibson’s appeal cost the county and told Gibson “you ought to pay the freight on it.” The trial court added two five hundred dollar fines to the sentence and said, “I’m taking into account what [the appeal] has cost the county.”
Gibson argues on appeal that the trial court cannot make him pay the cost of its own errors. An indigent defendant has a constitutional right to “have his court costs, including the cost of his transcript, paid for by the government....” State v. Byrd, 378 So. 2d 1231, 1232 (Fla.1979) (citing Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956)). Imposing a penalty upon a defendant for successfully appealing an unlawful sentence is a violation of due process of law. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2080, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). Gibson acknowledges the fines are within the amount authorized by statute and there would be no appealable issue if the court had not announced its reasons for the fines. Gibson argues, however, if unconstitutional reasons are articulated, reversal is required. E.g., Gallucci v. State, 371 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
We find that since the trial court did not provide the statutory authority for the imposition of the fines in the order or at the sentencing hearing, the fines must be stricken. Daniels v. State, 524 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We also find that Gibson’s argument is sound, and we strike the fines with prejudice to the trial court’s ability to reimpose them. The remainder of Gibson’s judgment and sentence is affirmed.
WIGGINTON and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawley v. State, 680 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…tute, and that statutory authority must be cited in the written order. While a fine may ordinarily be imposed within statutory limits, a fine may not be imposed because a defendant exercises his constitutional right to a jury trial. Gibson v. State, 577 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We, therefore, vacate the fine and remand for reimposition without consideration of the cost of Lawley’s trial and legal representation. Second, as one of the special conditions of his probation, the court ordered Lawley to no…
-
Charles v. Womack, Jr., 617 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…which involved imprisonment for 5½ years, probation for eighteen months, and a $10,000.00 first-time fine, did not constitute a more severe penalty than the original fifteen-year period of imprisonment. A contra result obtained in Gibson v. State, 577 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA1991). In Gibson, the trial judge asked the prosecutor what Gibson’s appeal cost the county, with the observation that Gibson “ought to pay the freight on it.” The judge then imposed two fines of $500.00, and further stated that the cou…
Authorities Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969)
- Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (U.S. 1956)
- Gallucci v. State, 371 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- State v. Arsoreda Byrd, 378 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 1979)
- Gibson v. State, 553 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1989)
- Gibson v. State, 519 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Daniels v. State, 524 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)