PAUL S. STEWART, 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.
Paul Stewart appeals his sentence for criminal mischief following a no contest plea, challenging two costs imposed. The court reversed the imposition of a $150 court facility fee due to the trial court's failure to find ability to pay, but affirmed the $3 teen court fee.
The $150 court facility fee was erroneously imposed because the trial court failed to make a required finding that Stewart had the ability to pay it. The $3 teen court fee was properly imposed because the trial court cited to statutory authority, which is sufficient support, though future orders should reference both the statute and applicable county ordinance.
[1] A court facility fee imposed pursuant to section 939.18, Florida Statutes, must be stricken as erroneously imposed when the trial court fails to make a finding that the d…
[2] A trial court's citation to statutory authority is sufficient to support the imposition of a teen court fee.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The court may order a person to pay the additional court cost if it finds that the person has the ability to pay the additional assessment and will not be prevented thereby from making restitution or other compensation to victims which is authorized by law or from paying child support.”
Statutory requirement for imposing court facility fee under section 939.18(1)(b)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStewart entered a no contest plea to criminal mischief and was sentenced with two costs imposed: a $150 court facility fee under section 939.18, Flori…
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 Appeal From Judgment And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Paul Stewart appeals, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), his judgment and sentence for criminal mischief, entered following a no contest plea. Counsel for Stewart filed an initial Anders brief challenging two costs 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 challenged $3 teen court fee, and we affirm without comment as to the issues raised in Stewart’s pro se brief.
Stewart challenges the $150 court facility fee imposed pursuant to section 939.18, Florida Statutes (2002), because the trial court failed to make a finding that Stewart had the ability to pay the fee. Section 939.18(l)(b) provides as follows:
The court may order a person to pay the additional court cost if it finds that the person has the ability to pay the additional assessment and will not be prevented thereby from making restitution or other compensation to victims which is authorized by law or from paying child support.
When a trial court imposes the $150 court facility fee without first finding that the defendant has the ability to pay it, the cost will be stricken as erroneously imposed. McLean, 870 So. 2d at 50. Accordingly, the trial court in this case erred by imposing the court facility fee without the required finding, and we reverse and remand for the trial court to strike that cost.
Stewart also challenges the $3 teen court fee imposed pursuant to section 938.19, Florida Statutes (2002), because the trial court did not reference the county ordinance authorizing the imposition of such a fee. We affirm the imposition of the teen court fee because the trial court did cite to the statutory authority for the fee, and this is sufficient to support its imposition. See Cruz v. State, 830 So. 2d 892, 893 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (citing Armstrong v. State, 696 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). However, we note that a recent opinion of this court directs that future court orders include a reference to both the statutory authority for the teen court fee and the applicable county ordinance. Ayoub v. State, 901 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
In conclusion, we affirm Stewart’s judgment and sentence, except to the extent that we reverse and remand for the trial court to strike the $150 court facility fee.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DAVIS and CANADY, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jamin Chavis v. State, 247 So. 3d 9 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…1 So. 2d 311, 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). And yet, another Second District opinion has affirmed the imposition of costs finding that reference to the statute was sufficient, and it was unnecessary to cite the local ordinance. See Stewart v. State, 906 So. 2d 1128, 1129-30 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Here, the trial court cited the statutory authority to impose the costs, but did not cite the specific ordinance. In line with Johnson, this was more than sufficient. We affirm. Affirmed. TAYLOR and KUNTZ,…
-
Lambert v. State, 912 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…such payment will not interfere with his ability to pay any child support or restitution he owes. The imposition of this cost must be stricken; the trial court did not make the requisite finding of Mr. Lambert’s ability to pay. See Stewart v. State, 906 So. 2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Strickland v. State, 889 So. 2d 219, 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Except for striking the $150 court improvement fund cost, we affirm Mr. Lambert’s conviction and sentence. WHATLEY and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur. . See art. I, §§…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Ayoub v. State, 901 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Armstrong v. State, 696 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Cruz v. State, 830 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- McLEAN v. State, 870 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)