ROBERT SIMPKINS, 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 the trial court erred in adding a new condition of probation requiring payment of court costs, as this constituted an enhancement of the sentence without a probation violation.
Simpkins challenged his resentencing on remand. The trial court orally added a new condition of probation requiring Simpkins to pay $411 in court cost…
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 Anders V. California cases and more on FLexlaw
EDWARD F. THREADGILL, Senior Judge.
In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Simpkins challenges his resentencing on remand from this court. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the trial court erred in orally adding a new condition of probation to Simpkins’ probationary sentence. The additional condition required Simpkins to pay $411 in court costs. This condition had not previously been imposed.
By requiring Simpkins to pay the $411 in costs as a new condition of probation, the court enhanced Simpkins’ sentence even though he had not violated his probation. This amounts to fundamental error. See Lippman v. State, 633 So. 2d 1061 (Fla.1994). This additional condition cannot be considered a modification since there were no monetary conditions of probation ever previously imposed.
We, therefore, remand to the trial court to strike the condition of probation improperly imposed.1 Otherwise, we affirm Simpkins’ convictions and sentences.
Affirmed, remanded to strike oral condition of probation.
NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ„ Concur. . While the written sentencing order does not contain this new condition, the oral directive does add this specific provision and oral directives control over written ones in sentencing. Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peacock v. State, 167 So. 3d 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…ook place because of a scoresheet error that “favored” the State. A resentencing proceeding initiated to determine if a defendant is entitled to a lesser sentence cannot be utilized by the trial court to increase-the sentence. See Simpkins v. State, 841 So. 2d 643, 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that trial court committed fundamental error by imposing new conditions of probation at resentencing hearing following remand from appellate court). [*517] REVERSED and REMANDED to strike the four new special conditi…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- Lippman v. State, 633 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1994)