SIMON MCLEAN, 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 a discretionary cost cannot be imposed without considering the defendant's financial resources and orally announcing the imposition.
The defendant pleaded guilty to several charges and was assessed a discretionary court cost. The trial court did not consider the defendant's ability …
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.
COVINGTON, Judge.
On appeal, Simon McLean contends that the trial court erred in improperly imposing a discretionary cost at his sentencing. We agree and remand for further proceedings.
McLean pleaded guilty to three charges, including aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, fleeing and eluding, and reckless driving, specifically reserving his right to appeal. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a $150 discretionary court improvement trust fund cost pursuant to section 939.18, Florida Statutes (2001). Section 939.18 permits a court to impose an additional court cost if “it finds that the person has the ability to pay the additional assessment.” McLean timely filed a rule 3.800(b) motion to correct a sentencing error, preserving the issue for appeal. Carter v. State, 791 So. 2d 525, 527 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
Here, the trial court did not consider McLean’s financial resources or orally announce the imposition of the discretionary cost assessed against McLean. In deciding whether to assess the discretionary cost, a court is to consider the financial resources of the defendant as well as other relevant factors. Huesca v. State, 841 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Edwards v. State, 814 So. 2d 1197, 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Trial courts also are obligated “to orally announce the imposition of discretionary costs.” Huesca, 841 So. 2d at 586.
Thus, it was improper for the trial court to impose the $150 discretionary cost. Accordingly, we strike the imposition of the $150 discretionary cost and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court may assess the discretionary cost if it properly considers McLean’s financial resources and orally announces the imposition of the cost. Id. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and WALLACE, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
James v. State, 898 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…63] The trial court also erroneously imposed $150 for the court facilities fund without finding that James had the ability to pay the additional assessment. See § 939.18(1)(b); Spruill v. State, 888 So. 2d 93, 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); McLean v. State, 870 So. 2d 50, 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accordingly, we strike these costs and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court may reimpose these costs if the procedural safeguards set forth in Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc)…
-
Stewart v. State, 906 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…osts imposed as part of Stewart’s sentence. These challenges were raised in a timely motion to correct sentencing error filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) and, thus, are preserved for review on appeal. See McLean v. State, 870 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Because the trial court erroneously imposed a $150 court facility fee without making a finding that Stewart had the ability to pay, we reverse and remand for the trial court to strike that cost. We affirm the imposition of the ch…
Authorities Cited
- Zebbie Edwards v. State, 814 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Carter v. State, 791 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Huesca v. State, 841 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)