ISMAEL I. DIAZ, 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.
Ismael Diaz appealed his guilty plea convictions in two cases challenging the imposition of certain costs. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but reversed and remanded regarding improper prosecution and investigative costs in one case, and remanded for entry of amended judgments after the trial court granted relief on court facility costs but failed to enter the amended sentences.
The court held that prosecution and investigative costs were improperly imposed in case 03-4492 and must be struck or reimposed only if statutory requirements are met. The court also held that court facility costs in both cases were properly stricken by the trial court upon consideration of financial resources, but remanded because amended judgments and sentences were not entered reflecting this correction.
[1] Prosecution and investigative costs under section 938.27, Florida Statutes, require express requests with supporting documentation from the specific agencies that incurre…
[2] A motion to correct a sentencing error is deemed denied if the trial court fails to address it.
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“Because the prosecution and investigative costs were improperly imposed in case number 03-4492, we reverse the sentence as to these costs and remand for the trial court to either strike the costs or reimpose the costs if the statutory requirements are met.”
Establishes the court's holding that costs must satisfy statutory requirements including express agency requests with supporting documentation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDiaz pleaded guilty to multiple charges including grand theft of a motor vehicle in two circuit court cases. In both cases, the trial court imposed pr…
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 Investigative Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
[*311] WALLACE, Judge.
In this appeal brought pursuant to An-ders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Ismael Diaz identifies minor sentencing errors in two cases. See In re Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149, 152 (Fla.1991). We reverse the sentences in part with regard to certain costs and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The judgments and sentences are affirmed in all other respects.
In circuit court case 03-2116 (appellate case 2D03-5350) and circuit court case OS-4492 (appellate case 2D03-5351), Diaz pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including grand theft of a motor , vehicle. In both cases, the trial court imposed the following costs: (1) $150 in prosecution costs, § 938.27, Fla. Stat. (2002); (2) $130 in investigative costs, § 938.27; and (3) $150 in court costs for court facilities, § 939.18(1). This appeal concerns two motions filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) directed to these costs.
In the first motion, Diaz requested the trial court to strike the prosecution costs and the investigative costs in both cases for lack of express requests, with supporting documentation, by the specific agencies that incurred the costs.
The trial court correctly granted relief in case number 03-2116 by entering an amended judgment and sentence omitting the prosecution costs and investigative costs that had appeared in the original judgment and sentence. See § 938.27(1); Ortiz v., State, 884 So. 2d 77, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Smith v. State, 714 So. 2d 1152, 1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
However, the trial court failed to address the motion as it related to case number 03-4492; thus, as to that case, the motion was deemed denied. See O’Neill v. State, 841 So. 2d 629, 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Because the prosecution and investigative costs were improperly imposed in case number 03-4492, we reverse the sentence as to these costs and remand for the trial court to either strike the costs or reimpose the costs if the statutory requirements are met.
Diaz timely filed a second rule 3.800(b)(2) motion requesting the trial court to strike the $150 in court costs for court facilities in both cases because the court failed to consider Diaz’s financial resources. See § 939.18(1)(b).
The trial court agreed that the cost should be stricken in both cases and entered a timely order granting the motion.
However, there is no indication in the record that the trial court' entered amended judgments and sentences in accordance with its order. We remand for this purpose. See Weinheimer v. State, 829 So. 2d 338, 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (remanding for entry of amended judgments and sentences when, during pendency of the appeal, the trial court entered an order correcting a sentencing error but failed to enter amended judgments and sentences in accordance with its order).
Convictions affirmed, sentences affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded.
FULMER and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 137 So. 3d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…s were actually incurred. Accordingly, the inves [*473] tigative costs entered against Appellant must be reversed and remanded for the trial court to either strike the costs or reimpose the costs if the statutory requirements are met. Diaz v. State, 901 So. 2d 310, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Additionally, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1) provides that the court was required to notify Appellant of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of public defender costs. As the court did not comply wit…
-
del Valle v. State, 26 So. 3d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…sts must be stricken. See James v. State, 898 So. 2d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Ortiz v. State, 884 So. 2d 77, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The trial court may impose the costs on remand if [*652] the statutory requirements are met. See Diaz v. State, 901 So. 2d 310, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Ortiz, 884 So. 2d at 78. Del Valle also argues that the trial court erred in imposing $110 and $40 in public defender fees because the fees were not announced at sentencing and Del Valle was not informed of his right to con…
-
Hayes v. State, 25 So. 3d 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…we reverse the portion of the sentences imposing the investigative costs and the public defender lien and remand for further proceedings. See id. (remanding to allow the defendant to object to the amount of the public defender lien); Diaz v. State, 901 So. 2d 310, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“remand[ing] for the trial court to either strike the [investigative] costs or reimpose the costs if the statutory requirements are met”). In all other respects, Mr. Hayes’ judgments and sentences are affirmed. Affirmed in…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- In re App. Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991)
- Gunn v. State, 841 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- O'Neill v. State, 841 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Ortiz v. State, 884 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Smith v. State, 714 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Webb v. State, 829 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Ward David Weinheimer v. State, 829 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)