HENRY JACKSON, 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 Jackson's conviction for battery, cocaine possession, and paraphernalia possession, but remanded to clarify sentencing documents that incorrectly appeared to impose costs on a per-count rather than per-case basis.
Costs imposed in a merged multi-case proceeding must be clearly documented to reflect per-case rather than per-count assessment, and sentencing documents must specify the original case number for each cost.
[1] When multiple separate cases are merged under a single case number for administrative purposes, sentencing documents must clearly identify the original case number associ…
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 intelligenceHenry Jackson was convicted of battery, possession of cocaine, and possession of paraphernalia. Four separate cases were merged under a single case nu…
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 Statutory Authority For Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Henry Jackson appeals from his judgment and sentence for battery, possession of cocaine, and possession of paraphernalia. We affirm Jackson’s judgment and sentence but remand for correction of the written sentencing documents.
Jackson filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) seeking to have the costs assessed against him stricken because they were imposed on a per count basis, rather than a per case basis, and because the sentencing documents did not reference the statutes authorizing their imposition. The State responded that the present case originated as four separate cases which were merged under a single case number for “clarity and efficiency.” Our review of the record confirms that this case was merged with three other cases and disposed of under a single case number. It also confirms that the statutory authority for each cost was properly set forth. However, the written sentencing documents fail to specify the original case number associated with each statutory cost, thus making it appear that costs were imposed on a per count basis. Although we find no error, we remand this case with directions to clarify the written sentencing documents in accordance with this opinion. In all other respects, Jackson’s judgment and sentence is affirmed.
Affirmed; remanded with directions.
ALTENBERND, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., Senior Judge, Concur.