KENNETH DEON HAYDEN, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed burglary conviction but remanded to correct written sentence to reflect concurrent rather than consecutive service and struck costs imposed under statutes enacted after the offense date.
A trial court's written sentence must be corrected when it contradicts the oral pronouncement at sentencing, and costs cannot be imposed under statutes enacted after the offense date.
[1] When a trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence differs from the written judgment, the written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement.
[2] Costs assessments cannot be imposed under statutes that were not enacted until after the date of the defendant's offense.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKenneth Deon Hayden was convicted of burglary of a dwelling. At sentencing, the trial court orally pronounced that his sentences would be served concu…
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 Burglary Of A Dwelling cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Acting Chief Judge.
We affirm Kenneth Deon Hayden’s conviction and sentence for burglary of a dwelling, but we remand for correction of his written sentence and we strike certain costs. Hayden notes, and the State correctly concedes, that his written sentence erroneously directs that his sentence for this conviction be served consecutively to that imposed in case number 96-3746. At the sentencing hearing the court had pronounced that the sentences were to be served concurrently. Accordingly, we remand this case for correction of the written sentence to comport with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Smith v. State, 695 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
We also agree with Hayden’s contention that the trial court should not have imposed costs for the Juvenile Assessment Center and the Teen Court Program because those costs assessments were not enacted until after the date of his offenses. See §§ 39.019 and 775.0833, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). Therefore, we strike these costs. See Pierce v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2051, - So. 2d -, 1998 WL 558760 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept.4, 1998), quashed on other grounds, 734 So. 2d 399 (Fla.1999).
Affirmed in part, remanded for correetion of sentence, and costs stricken.
GREEN and DAVIS, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffin v. State, 946 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…who committed his crime prior to their effective dates. See Cutwright v. State, 934 S6.2d 667, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (stating, “Costs may not be imposed where the authorizing statutes were enacted after the date of the offense. See Hayden v. State, 753 So. 2d 720, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)”); see also Gonzalez v. State, 939 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (involving sections 775.083(2) and 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004)); Waller v. State, 911 So. 2d 226, 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (involving section 939.18, Florida…
-
Griffin v. State, 980 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 2008)…n of ex post facto prohibitions); Johnson v. State, 502 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (holding imposition of costs of probation, without any increase in jail or prison time, not an impermissible enhancement of punishment); but see Hayden v. State, 753 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding cost assessment for juvenile assessment center and teen court program could not be imposed where statutes authorizing imposition of such costs were enacted after date of defendant’s offenses). Applying these principles t…
-
Ridgeway v. State, 892 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…n of ex post facto prohibitions); Johnson v. State, 502 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (holding imposition of costs of probation, without any increase in jail or prison time, not an impermissible enhancement of punishment); but see Hayden v. State, 753 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding cost assessment for juvenile assessment center and teen court program could not be imposed where statutes authorizing imposition of such costs were enacted after date of defendant’s offenses). Applying these principles t…
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
- Geremi Pierce v. State, 734 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1999)
- Smith v. State, 695 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)