EDWIN ROLDAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Edwin Roldan appealed his sentencing on an aggravated battery conviction, challenging the imposition of prosecution and investigation costs. The court affirmed the sentence, holding that Roldan waived his right to challenge the costs by affirmatively consenting to them at sentencing without objection.
The court held that Roldan did not adequately preserve the issue for appeal because he was provided notice and opportunity to be heard, affirmatively agreed to the costs, failed to object to the amount, and failed to present evidence of his inability to pay. The court also rejected Roldan's other sentencing arguments as without merit.
[1] Prosecution and investigation costs are to be imposed subsequent to a trial court’s consideration of a defendant’s financial resources and needs.
[2] A defendant’s right to appeal investigative costs cannot be waived by a failure to object.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Prosecution and investigation costs are to be imposed subsequent to a trial court's consideration of a defendant's financial resources and needs.”
Establishes the general legal requirement for imposing prosecution and investigation costs
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoldan was charged with aggravated battery under Florida law and entered a guilty plea. At sentencing, the prosecutor requested $1,100.40 in transport…
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 Right To Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state charged Edwin Roldan with one count of aggravated battery, § 784.045, Fla. Stat.(1991), and Roldan pled guilty. At Rol-dan’s sentencing hearing, the prosecutor informed the court: “I’m seeking the transportation cost of $1,100.40. In addition to that, $2,031 in restitution to [the victim] for medical costs; cost of prosecution in the amount of $50; cost of investigation in the amount of $100.” The court asked Roldan’s counsel, “[a]re there any objections to the costs, Mr. Margalli?” and defense counsel responded, “No objection, Your Honor.”
Prosecution and investigation costs are to be imposed subsequent to a trial court’s consideration of a defendant’s financial resources and needs. Beckford v. State, 667 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Burdo v. State, 667 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Blanco-Diaz v. State, 618 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). § 939.01(5), Fla. Stat. (1995). See also Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Tennie v. State, 593 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Furthermore, this court has stated, “[t]he right to appeal the investigative costs cannot be waived by the defendant’s failure to object.” Merrett v. State, 670 So. 2d 1055, 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Here, however, defense counsel affirmatively indicated that he had no objection to the costs imposed. As was the ease in Norman v. State, 676 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), this defendant was provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard and affirmatively agreed to the imposition of costs, failed to object to the amount and failed to present evidence of his inability to pay. Under these circumstances, relying on the analysis in Norman, we conclude the defendant did not adequately preserve this issue for appeal. See Norman and cases cited therein.
We find the remainder of the points raised likewise without merit. The arguments made at Roldan’s sentencing hearing that he was a drug abuser and that he had acted, in part, in fear for his own safety, were raised only in the context of lowering defendant’s sentence, and were not perceived by anyone, including Roldan’s own counsel, as reasons not to go forward with the plea. Roldan clearly stated that the plea had been explained to him and that he agreed to it because it was in his best interest.
Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rivera v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…; see also State v. Abrams, 350 So. 2d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (“The acts of an attorney on behalf of a client will be binding on the client even though done without consulting him and even against the client’s wishes.”); Roldan v. State, 676 So. 2d 1029, 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (finding defendant did not preserve challenge to costs where “defense counsel affirmatively indicated that he had no objection to the costs imposed”). Any claim of insufficient evidence under section 938.29(1)(a), Florid…
-
Rivera v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…5(h); see also State v. Abrams, 350 So. 2d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (“The acts of an attorney on behalf of a client will be binding on the client even though done without consulting him and even against the client’s wishes.”); Roldan v. State, 676 So. 2d 1029, 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (finding defendant did not preserve challenge to costs where “defense counsel affirmatively indicated that he had no objection to the costs imposed”). Any claim of insufficient evidence under section 938.29(1)(a), Florida St…
Authorities Cited
- Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Tennie v. State, 593 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Blanco-Diaz v. State, 618 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Norman v. State, 676 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Burdo v. State, 667 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Edilberto O. Marban, Esq. v. Arias, 670 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- von Eiff v. Leonor Azicri and Roberto Azicri, 667 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Madorsky v. Marcelino Regalado, 667 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)