MICHAEL KEVIN CUTWRIGHT, 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.
Michael Kevin Cutwright appealed his convictions for sexual battery and criminal contempt, challenging both the convictions and sentences imposed. The court affirmed the sexual battery conviction but reversed the criminal contempt conviction due to procedural defects in the judgment, and modified the cost assessments by striking certain costs imposed under statutes that postdated the offense.
The court affirmed the sexual battery conviction and found the criminal contempt conduct established, but reversed the contempt conviction and remanded because the written judgment failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 by not specifying the conduct. The court struck costs imposed under sections 938.085 and 939.185 because those statutes became effective after the offense date. The court affirmed the $2 cost under section 938.15, finding the statutory reference and description sufficient and holding that such costs may be imposed for state statute violations.
[1] A written judgment of criminal contempt must include a recital of the facts on which the adjudication of guilt is based.
[2] Costs may not be imposed where the authorizing statutes were enacted after the date of the offense.
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“the trial court did not follow the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830, which requires courts to "include [in the written judgment of contempt] a recital of those facts on which the adjudication of guilt is based."”
Establishes the court's holding that the contempt conviction must be reversed due to failure to comply with rule 3.830's procedural requirements for written judgments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCutwright was convicted of sexual battery committed on June 5, 2003, and criminal contempt. The trial court imposed various costs, including $151 unde…
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 Imposition Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
CANADY, Judge.
Michael Kevin Cutwright appeals his convictions and the sentences imposed thereon for sexual battery and criminal contempt. We affirm Cutwright’s conviction for sexual battery without comment.
Regarding Cutwright’s criminal contempt conviction, we find no error in the trial court’s determination that Cut-wright’s conduct constituted direct criminal contempt. However, as Cutwright argued in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), and as the State concedes, the trial court did not follow the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830, which requires courts to “include [in the written judgment of contempt] a recital of those facts on which the adjudication of guilt is based.” Because the written judgment in this case fails to specify the conduct upon which th'e adjudication was based, we must reverse Cutwright’s criminal contempt order and remand with directions that the trial court render a judgment in compliance with rule 3.830. See McGlamory v. State, 723 So. 2d 388, 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
We next address whether the trial court erred by imposing a $151 cost pursuant to section 938.085, Florida-Statutes (2004), and a $65 cost pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004). Cutwright committed the sexual battery on June 5, 2003. Section 938.085 did not, however, become effective until July 1, 2003. See Ch. 2003-114, § 3, Laws of Fla. Section 939.185 did not become effective until July 1, 2004. See ch. 2004-265, § 88, Laws of Fla. The State has correctly conceded error on this issue. Costs may not be imposed where the authorizing statutes were enacted after the date of the offense. See Hayden v. State, 753 So. 2d 720, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We therefore strike the costs imposed pursuant to sections 938.085 and 939.185.
Finally, we address Cutwright’s argument that a $2 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.15, Florida Statutes (2003), should be stricken because the trial court failed to cite the county ordinance authorizing the imposition of the cost and because the cost can only be imposed for violation of a county or municipal ordinance and not for violation of a state statute. The cost order cited section 938.15 and referenced “Criminal Justice Education by Municipalities and Counties.” In a similar case, this court held that reference to a statute or description of the fund for which the assessment was made was sufficient. See Ayoub v. State, 901 So. 2d 311, 314-15 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). We therefore hold that the statutory reference and description was adequate for purposes of imposing the cost in this case.
This court has also held that the cost can be imposed pursuant to section 938.15 for violations of a state statute as well as for violations of a county or municipal ordinance. See Kimball v. State, 933 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Consequently, we reject Cutwright’s challenge on that basis and affirm the imposition of this cost. Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.
FULMER, C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Navicky v. State, 949 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…mproperly taxed him with a cost pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004).1 We agree. That statute is applicable to crimes committed after July 1, 2004. Waller v. State, 911 So. 2d 226, 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); see also Cutwright v. State, 934 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Navicky’s crime was committed on November 23, 2003. Accordingly, we strike the $65 court cost imposed pursuant to section 939.185, and remand to the circuit court to correct the judgment. Affirmed in part, cost stricken, a…
-
Stempler v. State, 955 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…We cannot equate these costs with civil filing fees that are assessed against either the losing plaintiff or the losing defendant and that are enforceable only as a judgment lien. More important, this court in Griffin relied on Cutwright v. State, 934 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), finding that because “[cjosts may not be imposed where the authorizing statutes were enacted after the date of the offense,” the costs imposed in Griffin were improper. See also Navicky v. State, 949 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 2d DCA…
-
Irvin v. State, 973 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…orrectly argues that the cost called for by this statute cannot be imposed on a defendant who committed the crime prior to the effective date of the statute. See Griffin v. State, 946 So. 2d 610, 614-15 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citing Cubwright v. State, 934 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), and certifying conflict with Ridgeway v. State, 892 So. 2d 538, 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)). As stated [*578] in Griffin, section 939.185 was enacted effective July 1, 2004. Griffin, 946 So. 2d at 614 (citing ch. 2004-265, §§ 8…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ayoub v. State, 901 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Hayden v. State, 753 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- McGLAMORY v. State, 723 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Kimball v. State, 933 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Hughes v. State, 933 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)