JAMES DALE BAUMAN, 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.
James Bauman appeals his convictions for felony DUI and driving with a suspended license, challenging the trial court's imposition of various costs, fees, and an amended probation order. The appellate court found merit only in Bauman's challenges to costs and fees, striking unauthorized costs and requiring correction of the judgment and probation order to conform with the trial court's oral pronouncements.
The court struck the $2.50 costs under section 943.25(4) as unauthorized, required the trial court to amend the judgment to include the orally imposed $150 public defender fees, struck court costs not authorized by statute or properly pronounced, and held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to file the amended probation order after notice of appeal but must correct the original probation order on remand to comport with the oral pronouncement regarding fines and costs.
[1] Costs imposed under section 943.25(4), Florida Statutes (1989), are not authorized by that statute.
[2] A trial court must correct a judgment and sentence to conform with its oral pronouncement of public defender fees.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“section 943.25(4), Florida Statutes (1989), which is printed on the final judgment and utilized to impose costs of $2.50, does not authorize the imposition of costs.”
Establishes that the statutory basis cited by the trial court did not authorize the $2.50 costs imposed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBauman was convicted of felony driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a suspended driver's license. The trial court imposed $2.50 in …
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 Written Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Bauman appeals his judgment and sentences for felony driving under the influence of alcohol and for driving with a suspended driver’s license. Bauman raises four issues on appeal. We find that only those issues related to costs, fees, and an amended probation order have merit.
First, section 943.25(4), Florida Statutes (1989), which is printed on the final judgment and utilized to impose costs of $2.50, does not authorize the imposition of costs. We strike these costs. See Alfonso v. State, 595 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Siplin v. State, 584 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
Second, the trial court orally imposed public defender fees in the amount of $150. The trial court, however, failed to include the public defender fees in the judgment and sentence. Thus the trial court must correct the judgment and sentence to conform with its oral pronouncement. See Freeman v. State, 594 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Third, Bauman’s order of community control and his written disposition and commitment form reflect imposition of court costs in the amount of $461 as to the driving under the influence conviction. The disposition and commitment form also notes imposition of court costs of $101 as to Bauman’s driving with a suspended license conviction. These costs were: (1) not orally pronounced by the trial court; (2) not included in the written judgment; and (3) without citation to statutory authority authorizing the imposition of such costs. We strike the costs that exceed those imposed pursuant to section 960.20 and those imposed for public defender fees. See Nutter v. State, 590 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Finally, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to file the amended order of probation after Bauman had filed his notice of appeal. See Dailey v. State, 575 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). However, since the trial court’s original order of probation does not comport with its oral pronouncement regarding fines and costs, the trial court on remand must correct the order of probation to include the proper fines and costs. Cf Dailey (trial court lacked jurisdiction to file amended order adding restitution after defendant filed notice of appeal, but on remand trial court directed to correct sentence to comply with restitution statute).
Reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.L. Gammon v. State, 738 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…n the 1995 sentences, Mr. Gammon need not be present at re-sentencing. We also quash the written order of probation. Since this order was entered after Mr. Gammon filed his notice of appeal, the trial court lacked jurisdiction. See Bauman v. State, 600 So. 2d 551, 552-53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). On remand, the trial court shall enter an order of probation consistent with the oral pronouncement made at sentencing. See State v. Williams, 712 So. 2d 762, 764 (Fla.1998); Vincent v. State, 600 So. 2d 1292, 1293 (Fla.…
-
State v. Freddy Morales, 678 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…n until after the notice of appeal had already been filed. See Loeb v. State, 387 So. 2d 433, 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Gorman v. State, 636 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); see also Jordon v. State, 631 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Bauman v. State, 600 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Key v. State, 599 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Dailey v. [*511] State, 575 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Hicks v. State, 559 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Casseus v. State, 509 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The Second Dis…
-
Jordon v. State, 631 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…riginal judgment and sentence removed jurisdiction from the trial court and eliminated the trial court’s authority to correct appellant’s sentence while the appeal was pending. See Kelly v. State, 359 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Bauman v. State, 600 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Key v. State, 599 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Dailey v. State, 575 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Hicks v. State, 559 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Wolfson v. State, 437 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Appellee relies on S…
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
- Dailey v. State, 575 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Columbus Ferry Siplin v. State, 584 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Britton v. State, 595 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Alfonso v. State, 595 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Eatmon v. Bonagura, 590 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Freeman v. State, 594 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)