GLENN BEAVER, 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.
The court held that the written probation order improperly imposed $150.00 in court costs, which exceeded the statutory limit for a misdemeanor conviction.
[1] A written sentencing or probation order must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement.
[2] A defendant convicted of a misdemeanor may be assessed no more than $50.00 in costs.
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 intelligenceAppellant pleaded nolo contendere to a misdemeanor and was placed on probation. The written probation order imposed $150.00 in court costs, differing …
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 Misdemeanor Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
JO ANOS, Chief Judge.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to the first degree misdemeanor of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of section 790.01(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the trial court placed appellant on six months probation, withheld adjudication of guilt, and imposed court costs of $150.00. This appeal concerns only the imposition of court costs. We reverse.
The written plea agreement in this case provides, among other things, that the state requested imposition of $150.00 as court costs, which appellant would maintain he was unable to pay. During the trial court’s oral pronouncement of the sanctions to be imposed pursuant to acceptance of the plea, the court imposed court costs of $150.00, to be paid within six months.
However, the written probation order reflects that appellant is to pay a fine of $150.00, plus a five percent surcharge, as directed by his probation officer. It is well settled that a written sentencing or probation order must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Timmons v. State, 453 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Further, one convicted of a misdemeanor may be assessed no more than $50.00 in costs. McMillian v. State, 502 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
The statutorily mandated costs to be assessed against one who pleads nolo conten-dere to a misdemeanor include: (1) $50.00 in costs in accordance with the schedule of costs set forth in section 27.3455(1), Florida Statutes (1989); (2) an additional cost of $20.00 pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1989); and (3) a court cost of $3.00 pursuant to section 943.25(3), Florida Statutes (1989).
Since appellant pled nolo contendere to a first degree misdemeanor, the imposition of $150.00 as court costs was improper. Accordingly this cause is reversed and remanded for correction of the sentencing documents to reflect imposition of court costs of $50.00, pursuant to section 27.-3455(1), Florida Statutes (1989), rather than a fine of $150.00 as set forth in the probation order. ALLEN, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nesbie Mims Jr. v. State, 665 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…PER CURIAM. Costs must be limited to $50 in this misdemeanor conviction. § 27.3455, Fla.Stat. (1993); Beaver v. State, 588 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The written judgment must be corrected to reflect this amount. We affirm in all other respects. JOANOS, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.…
-
Vilicic v. State, 637 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…ation and states that Appellant will spend two years on community control, with the first 90 days to be spent on the Community Control II. A written sentencing or probation order must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement, Beaver v. State, 588 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and where the written order contains discrepancies, the case must be remanded for correction. Brown v. State, 605 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Accordingly, this case is remanded, and the trial court is directed to conform t…
Authorities Cited
- Timmons v. State, 453 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- McMILLIAN v. State, 502 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)