GEORGE STONE, 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 costs properly assessed as part of a plea agreement or documented extradition costs are valid, but a special probation cost not orally announced or statutorily supported must be stricken.
[1] A defendant who agrees to pay certain costs as part of a plea agreement cannot later challenge the assessment of those costs.
[2] Extradition costs are properly assessed against a defendant when documented and not objected to at the time of imposition.
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 intelligenceGeorge E. Stone pled guilty to petit theft and probation violations. He was assessed certain costs, including extradition costs and a $24 payment to F…
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 Statutory Authority For Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
George E. Stone pled guilty to petit theft, as well as to probation violations. We affirm his convictions, sentences, and the conditions of probation, except one.
First, in his plea of guilty Stone agreed to pay certain costs. Those costs were properly assessed. Harris v. State, 515 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (defendant can’t renege after he agrees to certain costs as part of plea).
Second, Stone was also assessed $538.16 “restitution” for the costs of extraditing him back to Florida. Technically, this is not restitution, but a reimbursable cost to the state when documented. In this case, the amount was documented in the court file, Stone was given notice at the hearing of its imposition, and he made no objection. Thus, the extradition costs were properly assessed against Stone. See Dickson v. State, 622 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (defendant assessed for costs of extradition); Darling v. State, 577 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), citing Sallette v. State, 553 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1988); and Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984).
Finally, while the other costs were properly assessed, Stone was assessed one cost he did not agree to as a condition of his probation: a $24 payment to First Step. Because the trial judge did not orally announce this special condition of probation and because he gave no statutory authority in the written order for the imposition of payment, it must be stricken unless the trial judge can cite supporting statutory authority for its imposition. See Avallone v. State, 1994 WL 380199, No. 94-111 (Fla. 5th DCA July 22, 1994), citing Eckenrode v. State, 638 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Gedeon v. State, 636 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
We vacate the imposition of $24 in costs to First Step and remand with instructions to the trial court to correct the amount. The judgment and sentence is affirmed in all other respects.
Judgment AFFIRMED; Sentence VACATED and REMANDED with instructions to enter amended cost order. DAUKSCH, COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 846 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…stigative costs to the sheriffs office as part of his written plea agreement, on remand the trial court may include this assessment as an individual condition of Jones’ probation. See Sims v. State, 746 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Stone v. State, 642 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Reversed and remanded with directions. SALCINES and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur. . Jones preserved this issue for review by filing a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).…
-
Sitek v. State, 700 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Contrary to the public defender’s lien, the imposition of the fee of $100 to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement must be affirmed because the appellant agreed to pay it in his written plea agreement. See Stone v. State, 642 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Harris v. State, 515 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Conviction and sentence affirmed; reversed and remanded as to lien. DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.…
-
Jackson v. State, 680 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…if there was any objection. According to the transcript, the court asked the defendant if there were any questions to which she replied no. While it is true that a defendant should not be able to renege on costs that were agreed to, Stone v. State, 642 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), under the instant facts, the record is extremely ambiguous as to what the defendant actually agreed to. Here, the court itself indicated that the court costs and investigative costs were “special conditions” of probation, not ge…
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1988)
- Menchaca v. State, 636 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Hernandez v. State, 638 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Eckenrode v. State, 638 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Harris v. State, 515 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Cas. Indem. Exch. v. Deep SEA, Inc., 553 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Darling v. State, 577 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Dickson v. State, 622 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)