LOUIS JAMES DADDS, 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.
Louis James Dadds appeals his convictions for cocaine possession and drug paraphernalia possession, challenging the trial court's imposition of fines and costs. The court affirms his convictions but partially reverses, striking certain monetary penalties that lacked proper statutory pronouncement.
The $500 fine and $25 surcharge must be stricken because the trial court failed to pronounce the discretionary fine required by section 775.083(1). The $20 Crime Stoppers Trust Fund cost must also be stricken as it depends on a validly imposed fine. The $300 public defender fee is properly imposed based on the trial court's oral pronouncement and citation to section 938.29.
[1] A discretionary statutory fine and surcharge must be orally pronounced at sentencing.
[2] A discretionary statutory fine and surcharge that are not orally pronounced at sentencing must be stricken.
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“fines under section 775.083(1) are discretionary and must be pronounced”
Establishes that discretionary fines require affirmative pronouncement by the trial court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDadds was convicted of possessing cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)(2) and drug paraphernalia. The trial court imposed a $500 fine plus $25…
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
[*1130] LaROSE, Judge.
Louis James Dadds appeals his convictions and sentences for possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. We find no merit in Mr. Dadds’ argument that the trial court should have interviewed jurors before denying his hew trial motion. We write, however, to address the trial court’s imposition of certain costs and fines. Mr. Dadds properly preserved a challenge to the imposition of a $525 fine and surcharge, a $300 public defender fee, and a $20 Crime Stoppers Trust Fund cost by filing a motion to correct sentencing error. See Fla. R.App. P. 3.800(b)(2). The trial court summarily denied his motion.
Mr. Dadds argues that the trial court pronounced no statutory basis for the imposition of a $500 fine other than section 938.04, Florida Statutes (2004), that addresses the imposition of a five percent surcharge to the imposed fine.
We conclude that the fine and surcharge must be stricken.
The trial court’s monetary obligations order refers to section 893.13,. Florida Statutes (2004). Mr. Dadds’ cocaine possession conviction is for a violation of section 893.13(l)(a)(2). That subsection does not mandate a $500 fine.
Section 893.13(l)(a)(2) does refer to section 775.083, Florida Statutes (2004), as does the trial court’s monetary obligations order.
However, fines under section 775.083(1) are discretionary and must be pronounced. Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Because the trial court did not make that pronouncement, the $500 fine and $25 surcharge cannot stand.
Thus, we reverse the imposition of the $525 fine and surcharge and remand with directions that they be stricken. See, e.g., Willits v. State, 884 So. 2d 73, 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (remanding for trial court to strike fine and surcharge and noting that defendant’s presence at resentencing was not required).
Relying on section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2004), the trial court also imposed a $20 mandatory cost for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund. Section 938.06(1) authorizes this cost as “an additional surcharge” to “any fine prescribed by law.” Because the $500 fine discussed above was not properly imposed, the trial court could not impose the additional $20 surcharge under section 938.06. See, e.g., Kimball v. State, 933 So. 2d 1285, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Lang v. State, 856 So. 2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). This cost must be stricken. Kimball, 933 So. 2d at 1287.
Finally, Mr. Dadds argues that the trial court failed to pronounce the statutory basis for the imposition of a $300 public defender fee.
The trial court orally pronounced a $300 fee “for the help of your lawyer.” Mr. Dadds agreed that the amount was reasonable.
The trial court’s monetary obligations order cites section 938.29, Florida Statutes (2004), as authority for this fee.
The trial court’s description of the fee and citation to the correct statutory provision is sufficient to warrant affirmance. See, e.g., Ayoub v. State, 901 So. 2d 311, 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that identifying cost by name is sufficient description to substitute for statutory citation but directing that future cost orders should include proper statutory citations); Cook v. State, 896 So. 2d 870, 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (explaining procedure involved in imposing attorney’s fees under section 938.29).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions to strike the $525 fine and surcharge and the $20 Crime Stoppers Trust Fund cost.
STRINGER, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pullam v. State, 55 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…rge, and a $20 court cost. The written judgment for fines and costs includes a $200 fine under section 775.083, Florida Statutes (2009). Fines under section 775.083 are discretionary and must be orally pronounced at sentencing. See Dadds v. State, 946 So. 2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). In the instant case, because it failed to orally pronounce it at sentencing, the trial court erred in imposing the fine and it must be stricken. The written judgment for fines and costs also includes a $10 surcharge under…
-
Perdue v. State, 17 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…t erred by failing to orally pronounce the statutory authority for imposing the $525 fíne and surcharge pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes (2006). We agree. See Masengale v. State, 969 So. 2d 1218, 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Dadds v. State, 946 So. 2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Likewise, the trial court erred by imposing the two $20 mandatory costs towards the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund. Section 938.06(1) authorizes the cost as “an additional surcharge” to “any fíne prescribed by law.” Because the…
-
Clussman v. State, 89 So. 3d 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ge pursuant to section 938.04, Florida Statutes (2010), in each case. Fines under section 775.083(1) are discretionary, and “must be pronounced orally at sentencing.” See Bryant v. State, 47 So. 3d 952, 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (citing Dadds v. State, 946 So. 2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)). The trial court’s “lump sum” pronouncement of all costs and fines was not sufficient. See Nix v. State, 84 So. 3d 424, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to strike, in each case…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- Ayoub v. State, 901 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Lang v. State, 856 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Freddrick Lee Cook v. State, 896 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Willits v. State, 884 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Kimball v. State, 933 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Hughes v. State, 933 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)