EDDIE TORRES, JR., 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.
Eddie Torres, Jr. appealed his conviction on five offenses, including grand theft and dealing in stolen property, challenging the dual convictions on equal protection grounds and contesting the imposition of $500 in supervisory costs. The court affirmed the convictions but reversed the excessive supervisory costs assessment.
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no fundamental error in the equal protection claim and holding that Torres voluntarily waived his right to raise the issue by entering his pleas without a plea agreement. The court reversed the $500 supervisory costs assessment, holding that the statutory maximum is $50, which Torres had already been assessed.
[1] A defendant who enters a nolo contendere plea waives the right to a direct appeal, and may only raise fundamental errors.
[2] An equal protection claim based on a statutory distinction between defendants who proceed to trial and those who enter pleas is without merit if no state action deprived…
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 intelligence“appellant may not raise his equal protection claim unless such claim rises to the level of fundamental error, as appellant waived the right to a direct appeal by entry of his pleas”
Establishes that plea entry waives the right to raise appellate issues absent fundamental error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTorres pleaded nolo contendere to five separate offenses, including one count of grand theft of a video camcorder and one count of dealing in the same…
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 Equal Protection Principles cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Eddie Torres, Jr., pled nolo contendere to and was adjudicated guilty of five separate offenses, including one count of grand theft of a video camcorder and one count of dealing in the same stolen camcorder in case number 91-2037. On appeal, appellant argues that his dual convictions for theft and dealing in the same stolen property violate constitutional equal protection principles because under Section 812.025, Florida Statutes, defendants who elect to proceed to trial on these two offenses charged in the same information may be convicted of one or the other offense but not both, whereas, defendants such as appellant who enter pleas of nolo contendere or guilty can be convicted of both theft and dealing in the same stolen property.1 Next, appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing costs of $500.00 associated with appellant’s cost of supervision during the 1,000 hours of community service ordered by the trial court. We affirm appellant’s convictions but reverse the imposition of $500.00 in costs associated with community service.
First, appellant may not raise his equal protection claim unless such claim rises to the level of fundamental error, as appellant waived the right to a direct appeal by entry of his pleas. On the present facts, we find no fundamental error has occurred and decline to address the equal protection argument. Moreover, were we to address appellant’s equal protection claim, we would find appellant’s argument to be without merit for no state action deprived appellant of the benefit of Section 812.025. Rather, appellant obviously believed it to be in his best interest to voluntarily enter pleas to all the charges filed against him despite the fact that appellant’s pleas were not contingent upon a specific plea agreement.
The imposition of supervisory costs of $500.00 is hereby stricken as the maximum amount of such costs permitted by statute is $50.00, and appellant has already been assessed that amount. See Martin v. State, 618 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (on motion for rehearing).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.
BOOTH and MINER JJ„ and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur. . See Brown v. State, 464 So. 2d 193, 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), afFd on other grounds, 487 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 1986), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 930, 107 S.Ct. 398, 93 L.Ed.2d 352 (1986).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blanchette v. State, 620 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…tin as “an unauthorized double assessment” indicates that the fee is illegal. This court has subsequently stricken the fee in Jones v. State, 617 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), King v. State, 618 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), and Torres v. State, 619 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). None of these cases mentions Thicklin, or indicates that the fee would have been affirmed had an appropriate plea agreement appeared in the record. Even considering the plea agreement present in the instant case, however, we ar…
Authorities Cited
- S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Harcon Barge Co., Inc., 479 U.S. 930 (U.S. 1986)
- Metz et ux. v. United States, 479 U.S. 930 (U.S. 1986)
- Brown v. State, 464 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Brown v. State, 487 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 1986)
- Smith v. State, 618 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Martin v. State, 618 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)