JOSEPH BISSON, 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.
Bisson appealed his sentencing on multiple felony and misdemeanor charges, challenging a special probation condition requiring him to pay $75 in investigative costs to the New Smyrna Beach Police Department. The court affirmed the sentences but struck the investigative costs condition, holding that imposing such costs without a state request or supporting documentation constitutes illegal sentencing.
The court affirmed the conviction and sentences but struck the investigative costs condition. The imposition of investigative costs without a state request or documentation is illegal and constitutes fundamental error that can be challenged on appeal even without prior objection.
[1] A trial court has no authority to impose investigative costs without a request or supporting documentation.
[2] The imposition of investigative costs without a request or documentation constitutes an illegal sentence and fundamental error.
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“A trial court has no authority to impose investigative costs without a request or documentation. To do so constitutes an illegal sentence and therefore fundamental error.”
Establishes the core legal holding that investigative costs require both a state request and documentation, and that their imposition without these elements is fundamental error
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBisson pleaded guilty to three criminal offenses across three different criminal cases committed in 1994 and 1995. He was sentenced on October 29, 199…
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 Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Bisson pled guilty to three criminal offenses in three different criminal cases. In one case he was sentenced to 60 months in prison with credit for time served. The judge placed Bisson on concurrent five year terms of probation for the remaining three felony charges, and one concurrent year of probation for a misdemeanor charge. The offenses were committed in 1994 and 1995. He was sentenced on October 29, 1996.
We affirm in all regards, except for the trial court’s imposition of a special condition of probation that Bisson pay $75.00 investigative costs to the New Smyrna Beach Police Department. In this ease, the record reflects that the state made no request for investigative costs, nor was there any documentation offered to support the assessment. Imposition of investigative costs under these circumstances is illegal. Walker v. State, 692 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Pazo v. State, 684 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Meyers v. State, 676 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Golden v. State, 667 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
The state argues that section 924.051(3), Fla. Stat., which took effect July 1, 1996, bars this appeal because under the statute, an issue can only be appealed if it is either preserved by a timely objection, or is fundamental. Assuming this statute can be retroactively applied,1 we think Bisson’s right to challenge the investigative fees on appeal remains viable. A trial court has no authority to impose investigative costs without a request or documentation. To do so constitutes an illegal sentence and therefore fundamental error. AFFIRMED. Investigative Costs to New Smyrna Beach Police Department STRICKEN.
DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . See Neal v. State, 688 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ach, 453 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (explaining the.history of the assessment). Additionally, section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996) limits to $200 the “additional court costs” which can be imposed by the trial court. In Bisson v. State, 696 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), this court addressed an analogous cost issue, despite the failure to file a rulé 3.800(b) motion or otherwise preserve the issue for review, on the basis that the cost assessment was illegal and the error therefore “fundamental.…1 / 2
-
Tolbert v. State, 698 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…hese costs in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 939.01. A trial court has no authority to impose prosecution and investigative costs absent a request and documentation. To do so constitutes an illegal sentence. See Bisson v. State, 696 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Mickler v. State, 682 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111, 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence and strike the prosecution and investigative costs. T…
-
Abbott v. State, 705 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ive, is fundamental. See Medberry v. State, 699 So. 2d 857, 859 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(fundamental error occurs when a defendant is adjudicated and sentenced for an offense greater in degree than that returned in the verdict), and Bisson v. State, 696 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (imposition of investigative costs on defendant, where state did not request costs and there was no documentation to support it, is an illegal sentence and therefore fundamental error). We affirm the conviction, but remand for r…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Neal v. State, 688 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Jacques F. Golden v. State, 667 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Pazo v. State, 684 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Walker v. State, 692 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Vahteice Kirkman v. State, 692 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Meyers v. State, 676 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)