JOHN F. STEWART, A/K/A JOHN F. STEWARD, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed robbery conviction but remanded to strike a $50 fine imposed under the wrong statutory version, as the 2003 version applicable to the crime required discretionary imposition with oral pronouncement at sentencing.
A trial court cannot impose a fine under section 775.083(2)(b) without orally pronouncing it at sentencing when the applicable statutory version makes the fine discretionary and requires a finding of ability to pay.
[1] A fine under section 775.083(2)(b), Florida Statutes, when discretionary under the applicable statutory version, cannot be imposed without oral pronouncement at sentencin…
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“the court may order the defendant to pay such fine if the court finds that the defendant has the ability to pay the fine”
2003 version of section 775.083(2)(b) making the fine discretionary
John Stewart was convicted of robbery committed on August 29, 2003. At sentencing, the trial court imposed all mandatory costs as a lien, including a …
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 Discretionary Fines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John Stewart challenges his conviction for robbery. We affirm the judgment and sentence without discussion. However, we remand for the trial court to strike from Mr. Stewart’s sentence a $50 fíne imposed under section 775.083(2), Florida Statutes (2003).
At sentencing, the court imposed “all mandatory costs as a lien.” The $50 cost was mandatory under the 2004 version of section 775.083(2) in effect at the time of sentencing: “[Cjourt costs shall be assessed and collected....” However, the court adjudicated Mr. Stewart guilty and sentenced him for an August 29, 2003, robbery. Under the 2003 version of the statute, section 775.083(2)(b) was discretionary and required the court to find an ability to pay: “[T]he court may order the defendant to pay such fine if the court finds that the defendant has the ability to pay the fine.... ” See Cruz v. State, 830 So. 2d 892, 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (noting that a “fine pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes (1999),” that was identical to the 2003 version, was discretionary). Because the section 775.083(2)(b) fine was discretionary, the court could not impose it without orally pronouncing the fine at sentencing. Id. at 892-93 (citing Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc)). The court, in this case, announced only mandatory costs at sentencing. Therefore, the trial court must strike the $50 fine.
Judgment and sentence affirmed; remanded with directions.
CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. State, 939 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…scretionary court costs without conducting the required inquiry concerning Mr. Gonzalez’ ability to pay, we strike these costs. On remand, the trial court may reimpose the appropriate costs if it conducts the necessary hearing. See Stewart v. State, 916 So. 2d 53, 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Waller v. State, 911 So. 2d 226, 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. WHATLEY, SILBERMAN, and WALLACE, JJ., concur. . The 2004 version of section 775.083 replaced the 2003 version effec…
-
Zachery Antonio Denegall v. State, 975 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…datory, did not become effective until July 1, 2004. The cost statute in effect at the time Dene-gall committed his offenses was discretionary, and it was error for the trial court to have imposed this cost as a mandatory cost. See Stewart v. State, 916 So. 2d 53, 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Therefore, we remand for the trial court to strike $50 of the $370 cost imposed pursuant to section 775.083(2). Accordingly, the judgment and consecutive sentence for possession of cocaine is affirmed. The judgment for posse…
-
Raleigh M. Broadnax v. State, 987 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…3(2), Florida Statutes (2000). He argues that this cost should be stricken because it was discretionary on the date of the offense, it was not orally pronounced, and no determination was made as to Broadnax’s ability to pay, citing Stewart v. State, 916 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). We agree that, pursuant to Stewart, this $65 assessment for the Crime Prevention Court Cost must be stricken because it was not orally pronounced at sentencing. However, both challenged costs may be reimposed on remand if the cou…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Cruz v. State, 830 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)