TOMMY A. TUCKER, 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.
Tucker appealed his burglary conviction, challenging the trial court's imposition of costs and a sentencing error. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence but struck undocumented prosecution costs and an unauthorized administrative fee, and remanded for correction of a scrivener's error in the written sentence.
The court affirmed Tucker's conviction and fifteen-year sentence, struck the $601.25 in costs of prosecution for lack of required documentation and the $25 administrative cost as unauthorized by statute, and remanded for entry of a corrected judgment and sentence.
[1] Costs of prosecution cannot be imposed without documentation and notice to the defendant.
[2] The burden of demonstrating the amount of costs incurred is on the state attorney.
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“When costs of prosecution are imposed, the State must provide documentation for the costs, and the defendant must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for imposing costs of prosecution that was violated in this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTommy Tucker was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and sentenced to fifteen years. At sentencing, the trial court imposed $601.25 in costs of prosec…
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 Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Tommy Tucker appeals from his conviction and sentence for burglary of a dwelling. We find merit only in Tucker’s arguments that the trial court erred in imposing certain costs on him and that the written sentence contains a scrivener’s error. Tucker preserved these sentencing errors by filing a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).
First, Tucker argues that the trial court erred in imposing $601.25 in costs of prosecution because the costs were not documented. When costs of prosecution are imposed, the State must provide documentation for the costs, and the defendant must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Mickler v. State, 682 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). At sentencing, the prosecutor requested the costs on the record but never produced the supporting documentation at the time the costs were actually imposed. The prosecutor again failed to provide documentation at the rule 3.800(b) hearing.
The procedure employed by the State in this case does not meet the procedural requirements of section 938.27, Florida Statutes (1997) (formerly section 939.01, Florida Statutes), which states: “The burden of demonstrating the amount of costs incurred is on the state attorney.” § 938.27(6). Accordingly, we strike the costs of prosecution. On remand, the State may again seek to recover its costs of prosecution if it can produce the required documentation. Welch v. State, 724 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
Tucker next argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay a $25 cost pursuant to Administrative Order 3.1. The administrative order, which the trial court attached to its order on the rule 3.800(b) motion, cites to section 939.01(8), Florida , Statutes (now numbered as 938.27(8)); however, that section does not authorize the imposition of any costs. Section 939.01(8) states: “The court may order the clerk of the court to collect and dispense cost payments in any case.” Therefore, we strike the $25 cost as unauthorized. See Williams v. State, 596 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (striking a fee assessed pursuant to a county court administrative order because it was not specifically authorized by statute).
Finally, Tucker argues, and the State concedes, that the reference to a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum sentence in his judgment and sentence is a scrivener’s error. We agree. On remand, the trial court should enter a corrected judgment and sentence.
We affirm Tucker’s judgment and fifteen-year sentence, strike the costs of prosecution and the unauthorized administrative cost, and remand for entry of a corrected judgment and sentence.
Affirmed; remanded with instructions.
PARKER and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hill v. State, 845 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…EDWARD F., Senior Judge. David Hill challenges the court’s imposition of $300 in investigative costs for the Pinellas Park Police Department. The State concedes error because the State failed to document its request for costs. See Tucker v. State, 832 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). In requesting costs, the prosecutor merely stated: “And the Pinellas Park Police Department is asking for $300 in investigative costs.” No documentation was presented in support of this request, contrary to section 938.27(1), F…
-
Howard v. State, 920 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…n without comment. However, the State concedes that the trial court erred in imposing $25 in costs of prosecution because the State failed to document its request for costs. See Hill v. State, 845 So. 2d 310, 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Tucker v. State, 832 So. 2d 840, 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Although Howard did not object at sentencing to the imposition of these costs, he did raise the issue in his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). Because the trial court did not rule on the…
-
Hall v. State, 932 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…rial court erred in imposing $80 in costs of prosecution because the State failed to document its request for costs. See Howard v. State, 920 So. 2d 764, 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Hill v. State, 845 So. 2d 310, 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Tucker v. State, 832 So. 2d 840, 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Because the State failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the amount of costs incurred as required by section 938.27(4), Florida Statutes (2004), we strike the $80 costs of prosecution and remand to the trial court with…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 596 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Mickler v. State, 682 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Welch v. State, 724 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)