DAVID REDILLA, JR., 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.
David Redilla challenges his conviction and sentence for third-degree grand theft and criminal mischief in an Anders brief. The court affirms the conviction and sentence but remands to correct two minor sentencing errors involving a restitution order and inadvertently imposed court costs.
The court affirms Redilla's judgment and sentence for the underlying convictions but remands for correction of two sentencing errors: (1) preparation of an amended order of community supervision or modification of probation striking the $3,545.85 restitution requirement, and (2) entry of a corrected uniform costs order removing the inadvertently imposed additional costs.
[1] A defendant's right to raise sentencing errors under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) is not forfeited by counsel's identification of only minor sentencing…
[2] A trial court must enter an amended order of community supervision or modification of probation to strike a restitution requirement when previously ordered.
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“indigents in their first appeal as of right should not lose their Anders rights simply because counsel are able to identify some relatively minor sentencing issues in 'no merit' briefs”
Establishes that minor sentencing issues identified in Anders briefs do not deprive appellants of their Anders rights
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRedilla was convicted of third-degree grand theft and criminal mischief. The trial court imposed restitution and various court costs. On May 2, 2005, …
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 Restitution Order cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), David Redilla, Jr., challenges his judgment and sentence for third-degree grand theft and criminal mischief. Except for two minor sentencing errors that Redilla raised in the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), we affirm. See In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149, 152 (Fla. 1991) (stating that “indigents in their first appeal as of right should not lose their Anders rights simply because counsel are able to identify some relatively minor sentencing issues in ‘no merit’ briefs”).
The trial court rendered an order on May 2, 2005, that granted Redilla’s second motion to correct a sentencing error. In that order, the trial court vacated a restitution order and stated, “Within 10 days of the date of this order the Department of Corrections SHALL PREPARE an Amended Order of Community Supervision or Order of Modification of Probation striking Financial Condition 36, which requires Defendant to pay $3,545.85 in restitution.” Neither order was prepared, according to a certificate from the circuit court clerk dated May 23, 2005. Thus, we remand and direct the trial court to entel-an amended order of community supervision or an order of modification of probation striking financial condition 36 that requires Redilla to pay $3545.85 in restitution.
In its order of May 2, 2005, the trial court also ordered the clerk of the circuit court to file an amended uniform costs order to reflect the striking of the $150 court cost imposed pursuant to section 939.18, Florida Statutes (2003), and the $2 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.15, Florida Statutes (2003). The amended uniform costs order filed on June 6, 2005, deleted those costs but imposed two additional costs that had not been imposed in the original uniform costs order of May 17, 2004. Apparently, the additional costs were inadvertently imposed due to the trial court’s use of a new uniform costs order. Therefore, we direct the trial court on remand to strike the first amended uniform costs order of June 6, 2005. The trial court shall enter a second amended uniform costs order that does not include the additional $50 crime prevention court cost, pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes (2004), and the additional $65 court cost, pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004), that were not imposed in the original uniform costs order. Accordingly, we affirm Redilla’s judgment and sentence except that we remand for correction of the above sentencing errors.
CASANUEVA and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bassett v. State, 23 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…ts order nor the entry of an amended order of probation. Additionally, the amended costs reflected within the judgment and sentence added additional costs that were not originally imposed. The State has properly conceded error. See Redilla v. State, 929 So. 2d 613, 613-14 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (remanding for entry of amended probation order to reflect [*237] amended costs and for the striking of costs that were not originally imposed). Accordingly, we affirm Bassett’s judgment and sentence but remand for correct…
Authorities 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)