DAVID EARL PRIMM, 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 an excessive statutory cost assessment is fundamental error reviewable on appeal despite failure to object below, but other cost assessments are waived if not objected to.
David Earl Primm was convicted and sentenced for armed robbery, and challenged the imposition of certain court costs and restitution. Primm did not ob…
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 Waiver Of Appellate Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
David Earl Primm challenges his conviction and sentence for armed robbery. Primm raises four issues on appeal, but only one, which attacks the taxation of court costs, has merit. We affirm Primm’s conviction and sentence, but reverse the imposition of certain court costs and remand to the trial court to correct the judgment by reducing the costs in accordance with this opinion.
Primm argues that the imposition of restitution and of court costs pursuant to sec tions 27.3455 and 943.25, Florida Statutes (1991), should be reversed. Primm did not object to these assessments at the sentencing hearing. The state contends that his failure to object constitutes a waiver of this issue on appeal.
The judgment imposed costs of $250.00 pursuant to section 27.3455. That statute authorizes assessment of only $200.00 in costs against a person found guilty of a felony. Where fundamental error, such as costs in excess of the statutorily permitted assessment, appears on the record, we may review even though the appellant failed to raise the issue below. Robbins v. State, 413 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We reverse the imposition of $250.00 in costs in violation of section 27.3455, and remand with instructions to reduce the costs to $200.00 and correct the judgment accordingly. Primm need not be present for this correction.
The record does not demonstrate that fundamental error occurred in the assessment of restitution and the other court costs. Primm has waived these arguments by failing to object below. See Gilmore v. State, 479 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We therefore affirm the imposition of restitution and court costs pursuant to section 943.25. .
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anderson v. State, 649 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…e case, Anderson has waived this issue by failing to object at the trial level to either the method for determining the restitution or the approximate valuation of the items stolen. Moore v. State, 623 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Primm v. State, 614 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Anderson did object, however, to payment of restitution for items he allegedly did not steal. The trial judge agreed that the value of a shotgun and a Colt .45 should have been deleted from the $20,000.00 total, but the written…
-
Curry v. State, 656 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…e, now have reviewed the Judgment and conclude that fundamental error on the record exists as to the costs of prosecution and the cost assessed for the Criminal Justice Trust Fund and, accordingly, modify the Judgment sua sponte. See Primm v. State, 614 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).…
Authorities Cited
- Robbins v. State, 413 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- McLAIN v. Palm Beach Cnty., 479 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)