OTIS WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Otis Wright appeals from his judgment and sentence for sexual battery and kidnapping. We find no merit in his arguments on appeal except for his claim that the trial court improperly assessed additional court costs in the amount of $150 pursuant to section 939.18(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2004).1 Section 939.18(l)(b) permits a court to impose this additional court cost if “it finds that the person has the ability to pay the additional assessment.” Because the trial court failed to make the requisite finding, that cost must be stricken from Wright’s sentence. On remand, the trial court may again assess this additional cost provided it finds that Wright has the ability to pay it. Accordingly, we reverse the portion of Wright’s sentence assessing $150 in additional court costs. The trial court shall strike this cost from the sentence. We otherwise affirm the judgment and sentence.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., concur. . Wright preserved this argument by filing a rule 3.800(b) motion to correct sentence. The trial court granted the motion in part, but denied Wright's challenge to the imposition of costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…e 3.800(a) is limited to claims that a sentence itself is illegal, without regard to the underlying conviction.”). The authorities for this principle of law are legion. See, e.g., Henry v. State, 920 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Walker v. State, 940 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Salazar v. State, 675 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Plowman v. State, 586 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); State v. Spella, 567 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ferenc v. State, 563 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Because Appellan…
-
Purifoy v. State, 10 So. 3d 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…n relief on ground one of his motion for a different reason. A claim that a defendant’s scoresheet erroneously included as scored prior convictions crimes for which he or she had never been convicted requires an evidentiary hearing. Walker v. State, 940 So. 2d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see Lomont v. State, 506 So. 2d 1141, 1141-42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). It follows that Mr. Purifoy’s claim was not cognizable under rule 3.800(a) because the alleged error is not apparent from the face of the record. See Tyson,…
-
Murphy v. State, 273 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence