DEBORAH ELAINE JOHNSON, 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.
Johnson appealed a criminal sentence challenging a civil restitution lien and imposed costs. The appellate court struck the restitution lien as invalid for noncompliance with statutory requirements and remanded the cost assessment for clarification of statutory authority and conformity with the oral pronouncement.
The restitution lien is invalid and must be struck because it fails to identify the person or entity in whose favor it is imposed. The $330 fine assessment must be struck without prejudice, and the case is remanded for the trial court to clarify the nature of each assessment, identify the statutory authority for the costs, and conform the written order to the oral pronouncement. All other aspects of the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
[1] A civil restitution lien is invalid if it does not identify the person or entity in whose favor it is imposed.
[2] A trial court order imposing costs must reference statutory authority.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 lien at issue here is invahd in that it does not identify the person or entity in whose favor it is imposed”
Establishes the ground for striking the restitution lien as noncompliant with statutory requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson was sentenced by the trial court, which imposed a civil restitution lien and costs. The restitution lien did not identify the person or entity…
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.
In accordance with Lund v. State, 658 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), we strike the civil restitution hen order entered in this ease, based on its noneompliance with the requirements of section 960.292(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). As was the case in Lund, the lien at issue here is invahd in that it does not identify the person or entity in whose favor it is imposed. In view of this disposition, we decline to reach the other issues presented by appellant regarding the interpretation of the statute and its constitutionality, and the absence of the defendant at the time the lien was imposed.
Appellant further argues that the trial court erred in imposing costs without reference to statutory authority, that the orally imposed costs totaling $330 are erroneously characterized in the written order as a fine, and that the written order varies from the oral pronouncement in terms of the time allotted for payment of this sum. The state acknowledges and we agree that this issue should be remanded to the trial court for clarification as to the nature of each assessment and the statutory authority underlying it, and for the purpose of conforming the written order to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. We therefore strike the portion of the trial court’s order imposing a fine of $330, without prejudice to reimposition of the costs orally pronounced by the trial court, upon compliance with the proper procedures. See Bryant v. State, 661 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA Nov. 3, 1995); Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Bradshaw v. State, 638 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). In all other respects, the judgment and sentence of the trial court is affirmed.
JOANOS, MICKLE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cross v. State, 989 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…or the purpose of conforming the written order to the oral pronouncement and for clarification regarding the nature of the assessment and the statutory authority underlying it. See Hill v. State, 664 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Johnson v. State, 664 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). [*2] Further, the trial court announced that Cross would have to pay a five percent surcharge under section 316.193, Florida Statutes (2003). The assessment of this surcharge was improper, because section 316.193 prescribes the…
Authorities Cited
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Torey Bradshaw and Alford R. Martin v. State, 638 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Bryant v. State, 661 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Bonner v. State, 658 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)