PHILLIP ROSS, 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 court held that where a written order of disposition assessing costs is inconsistent with the oral pronouncement of sentence, the oral pronouncement prevails.
Appellant was resentenced as a Prison Release Reoffender. The successor judge ratified and incorporated prior cost assessments, but the predecessor ju…
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 Assessment Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, C.J.
Phillip Ross contends the trial court erred in its assessment of certain costs on resentencing. We agree.
Per this court’s opinion in Ross v. State, 770 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), Ross appeared before the trial court on December 14, 2000 for resentencing as a Prison Release Reóffender. § 775.082(9), Fla. Stat. (2000). A successor judge presided over this resentencing hearing. The judge sentenced Ross to thirty (30) years in prison with credit for time served, and provided, “The assessment of costs and public defender fees imposed by [predecessor judge] are hereby ratified and incorporated herein by reference as part of this Court’s sentence.” These oral pronouncements were then set forth in a written order of disposition which assessed costs totaling $305.
Our review of the record supports Ross’s contention that the predecessor judge had waived all costs at the initial sentencing hearing. The successor judge’s oral pronouncement that he was ratifying and incorporating those assessments made by the predecessor judge (no costs), prevails over the subsequently entered, and inconsistent, written order ($305 costs). See Tory v. State, 686 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(where written order does not conform to oral pronouncement of sentence, latter prevails). As such, on remand the assessment of costs shall be deleted. We note Ross does not challenge the imposition of sentence itself, and the matter need only be remanded for correction of the erroneous cost assessment on the disposition slip.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GUNTHER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ross v. State, 947 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…with this court’s mandate. On December 18, 2000, through his public defender, Ross filed a timely notice of appeal, thus invoking this court’s jurisdiction. The sole issue involved in this second appeal was the imposition of costs. In Ross v. State, 831 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) [Ross II], we determined the trial court erred and stated “the assessment of costs shall be deleted. We note Ross does not challenge the imposition of [the] sentence itself, and the matter need only be remanded for correction of…
Authorities Cited
- Traman D. Tory v. State, 686 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Ross v. State, 770 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)