SAMUEL OLIVER EDWARDS, 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 First District Court of Appeal affirmed Samuel Oliver Edwards' conviction and 30-month prison sentence, but modified the sentencing to reduce the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund assessment from $50.00 to $20.00, strike a $200.00 work program cost assessment, and award credit for time served on probation against the reinstated consecutive probationary period.
The convictions and prison sentence are affirmed, but the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund assessment must be reduced to $20.00 under section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1989), the $200.00 work program cost assessment must be stricken, and Edwards must receive credit for time previously served on probation in case 91-1250 against the reinstated consecutive probationary period.
[1] A court must apply the statutory assessment for the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund in effect at the time the offenses were committed.
[2] Costs associated with participation in a work program may be stricken if not properly authorized.
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“the requirement that appellant pay $50.00 to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund must be modified to reflect an amount of $20.00, as authorized by section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1989)”
The court established that the proper Crimes Compensation Trust Fund assessment under applicable law was $20.00, not $50.00
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdwards was convicted of crimes committed in 1990 and sentenced to 30 months in prison with a reinstated 10-year probationary period. The trial court …
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 Credit For Time Served On Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s judgments of conviction, the 30-month prison sentence, and the reinstatement of the 10-year probationary period are affirmed.
However, the requirement that appellant pay $50.00 to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund must be modified to reflect an amount of $20.00, as authorized by section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1989).1 In addition, the assessment of $200.00 as an additional cost associated with appellant’s participation in the Bay County Work Program must be stricken. See Wheatley v. State, 629 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Blanchette v. State, 620 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Martin v. State, 618 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). See also Thomas v. State, 633 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 640 So. 2d 1109 (Fla.1994).
Finally, appellant must be awarded credit for the time served on probation in circuit court case 91-1250 against the consecutive 10-year period of probation which was reinstated after revocation of the original probation. Williams v. State, 629 So. 2d 174, 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), review denied, 642 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1994); Summers v. State, 625 So. 2d 876, 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (en banc), approved by 642 So. 2d 742 (Fla.1994).
Accordingly, this cause is remanded with directions to reduce the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund assessment to $20.00; to strike the $200.00 assessment of costs for participation in the Bay County Work Program; and to credit the probationary term imposed in circuit court case 91-1250 with time initially served on probation for this conviction.
JOANOS, LAWRENCE and BENTON, JJ., concur. . Appellant’s offenses were committed in 1990, before the effective date of the amendment increasing the assessment to $50.00. Ch. 92-107, § 13, Laws of Fla.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kenneth Kapley, D.D.S. v. Borchers, 714 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…ditional facts to support its cause of action or to support another cause of action based on a different legal theory, dismissal with prejudice is an abuse of discretion. See Harper Companies v. Scott, Royce, Harris, Bryan, Barra, & Jorgensen, P.A., 656 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Kovach v. McLellan, 564 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). While it may have been proper to dismiss the complaint against appellee individually for failure to state a cause of action, we conclude it was an abuse of discretion to do…
-
Becklund v. Fleming, 869 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…ditional facts to support its cause of action or to support another cause of action based on a different legal theory, dismissal with prejudice is an abuse of discretion. See Harper Companies v. Scott, Royce, Harris, Bryan, Barra, & Jorgensen, P.A., 656 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Kovach v. McLellan, 564 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Therefore, unless we are able to conclude that the Creditor is unable to plead any facts that would entitle her to relief, we are required to give her an opportunity to do…
-
Mancinelli v. Davis, 217 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…e additional facts to support its cause of action or even to support another cause of action based on a different legal theory, dismissal with prejudice is an abuse of discretion.” Harper Cos. v. Scott, Royce, Harris, Bryan, Barra & Jorgensen, P.A., 656 So. 2d 627, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Because C3 was not given any opportunity to amend its complaint, and it is unclear whether C3 could potentially state a legally sufficient claim, we reverse and remand for C3 to be given the opportunity to amend. See Bryant…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carder v. State, 642 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1994)
- Goosby v. State, 625 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Arjomand v. Alec J. Ross, 633 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Lenthius Daryl Thomas v. State, 633 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Mullings v. Barton, 620 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Williams v. State, 629 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Smith v. State, 618 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Martin v. State, 618 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Wheatley v. State, 629 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)