JOHN MICHAEL PAGLIUCA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Costs Of Prosecution cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, J.
John Michael Pagliuca challenges the trial court’s imposition of $250.00 for the costs of prosecution and the requirement that he enroll in a probationers’ educational growth program pursuant to a special condition of his community control.
Section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2002), allows the trial court to impose the costs of prosecution “if requested and documented but in Pagliuca’s ease, the State presented no documentation. Con sequentially, we strike that portion of his sentence assessing the $250.00 for costs of prosecution and remand to the trial court for reimposition of the fees only if the State provides the necessary documentation. See, e.g., Hill v. State, 845 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), and citations therein.
The requirement that Pagliuca enroll in a probationers’ educational growth program as a special condition is neither statutorily authorized nor contained within the standard conditions of community control. Therefore, it must be orally pronounced at sentencing in order to be validly imposed. § 948.03(1), Fla. Stat. (2002); e.g., Queen v. State, 832 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Since special condition nineteen was not orally pronounced, it must be stricken. Harris v. State, 698 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
We strike the assessment of $250.00 costs of prosecution and remand to the trial court with directions that such costs may be reimposed only after the State produces the required documentation. Special condition nineteen is stricken because it was not orally pronounced at the time of sentencing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SHARP, W., J., concurs.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs in part, dissents in part.
GRIFFIN, J.,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
I agree that the assessment for “cost of prosecution” must be stricken. I disagree that we should remand for a second hearing. There was a failure of proof and that should be the end of it.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Armstrong v. State, 896 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…Harris v. State, 698 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). We also vacate the above-described conditions 21, 22 and 23, but remand for reimposition of the costs if the requirements of sections 938.27(1) and 939.18 can be met. See, e.g., Pagliuca v. State, 860 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Vidal v. State, 820 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; SENTENCE AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED. SAWAYA, C.J., PETERSON and MONACO, JJ., concur. . § 951.22, Fla. Stat. (2003). . § 322.34, Fk. S…
-
Major v. State, 874 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…we strike these costs from appellant’s sentence and remand for further proceedings. On remand, these costs may be reimposed provided the state can produce proper documentation. See Hill v. State, 845 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Pagliuca v. State, 860 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED GUNTHER, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
-
McCARTHY v. State, 893 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…en from the judgment. The prevailing view of Florida courts is that if the State fails to offer proof to support a cost claim against a defendant, the State should be given a new hearing and another opportunity to offer proof. See Pagliuca v. State, 860 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) and cases cited therein. If the courts do not view the failure to provide documentation at the first hearing as fatal, there seems to be no good reason to find the failure to make the request to be fatal. We therefore reverse, bu…
Authorities Cited
- Hill v. State, 845 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Queen v. State, 832 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Harris v. State, 698 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)