WILLIAM FERNANDEZ, 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 affirmed Fernandez's grand theft conviction and sentence but reversed the $150 court improvement fund cost imposed under Fla. Stat. § 939.18 because the trial court failed to inquire into his financial ability to pay as required by statute.
A trial court must conduct a statutory inquiry into a defendant's financial ability to pay before imposing a discretionary court improvement fund cost under section 939.18(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
[1] A trial court must inquire into a defendant's financial ability to pay and whether payment will interfere with child support and restitution obligations before imposing a…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Section 939.18(l)(b) allows the trial court to impose this discretionary cost if it finds that the person has the ability to pay the cost, and payment of the cost will not interfere with the person's ability to pay child support and restitution.”
The court explained the statutory requirement for imposing the court improvement fund cost.
William Fernandez was convicted of grand theft and sentenced to a judgment that included a $150 cost for the court improvement fund.…
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 Ability To Pay Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, JOHN M„ 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), William Fernandez appeals his judgment and sentence for grand theft. We find merit only in appellate counsel’s argument that the trial court improperly imposed a $150 cost for the court improvement fund under section 939.18, Florida Statutes (2003), as part of Fernandez’s sentence without considering his financial ability to pay. We affirm Fernandez’s judgment and sentence in all other respects without discussion.
“Section 939.18(l)(b) allows the trial court to impose this discretionary cost if it finds that the person has the ability to pay the cost, and payment of the cost will not interfere with the person’s ability to pay child support and restitution.” Patterson v. State, 796 So. 2d 572, 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In this ease, the trial court failed to conduct the statutorily required inquiry. We therefore reverse that portion of Fernandez’s sentence imposing the $150 cost and remand to strike this cost from his sentence. The trial court may again impose this cost after complying with section 939.18(l)(b). See Strickland v. State, 889 So. 2d 219, 220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Patterson.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Patterson v. State, 796 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Strickland v. State, 889 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)