TERRY A. DENMARK, 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.
Terry Denmark appealed her sentences in three criminal cases totaling ten counts, challenging the trial court's imposition of court costs and fees, particularly whether the court failed to specify statutory authority for costs in one case. The appellate court affirmed, finding the record adequately reflected the statutory basis for all costs imposed.
No error occurred. The record adequately reflected the statutory basis for costs imposed because the costs in case 05-20575 were concurrent with costs detailed in case 05-07147, which specified the statutory authority.
[1] A trial court's judgment adequately reflects the statutory basis for costs imposed when the judgment specifies the statutory authority for those costs, even if not listed…
[2] When costs are imposed concurrently across multiple cases, the statutory authority for the costs in one case may satisfy the requirement for the concurrently imposed cost…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“And I'll have the court costs be concurrent so one court cost. That will be a condition of probation.”
Trial court's statement imposing concurrent court costs, establishing the intent that defendant pay costs only once across the three cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDenmark pleaded guilty to ten charges across three cases. At sentencing, the trial court imposed $450 in concurrent court costs (to be paid once), inv…
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
FULMER, Judge.
Terry Denmark appeals the judgments and sentences in three cases encompassing a total of ten counts. Her counsel has filed an Anders
brief, which raises a minor sentencing issue on the merits. We affirm.
Denmark pleaded guilty in three cases, encompassing ten charges. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered $450 in court costs, stating, “[A]nd I’ll have the court costs be concurrent so one court cost. That will be a condition of probation.” The court also ordered investigative costs in two of the cases, a $1000 attorney fee, and a $40 indigency fee.
A motion to correct sentencing error was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), raising numerous challenges to the costs, including that the trial court failed to list the statutory authority for the mandatory costs in writing in each of the three cases. The postconviction court entered an order on April 9, 2007, granting in part and denying in part the motion. The court directed the clerk to strike several of the imposed costs. The court, however, rejected the claim that it failed to list the statutory authority for the mandatory costs in writing.
On appeal, counsel argues that the trial court erred in failing to list the statutory authority for costs in case number 05-20575. We conclude, however, that the record adequately reflects the statutory basis for the costs imposed. The judgment in case number 05-20575 provides: “[Tjotal statutory costs in the amount of $550.00, inclusive of, $2.00 to the Criminal Justice Education Fund, Investigative Costs in the amount of $100.00 pursuant to 938.27 F.S. These assessments excluding the Investigative Costs, are concurrent with CRC 05-07147CFANO.” The court’s order of April 9, 2007, amended this amount by removing the $100 assessment for investigative costs. This left $450 imposed “concurrent with” 05-07147, which, according to the court, means that the defendant has to pay only once. In case number 05-07147, a Judgment for Fine and Costs was entered specifying the statutory authority for the costs imposed. Thus no error occurred in failing to specify the statutory authority for the costs imposed in 05-20575 because those costs are the same costs imposed in cases 05-07147 and 05-09449.
Affirmed.
DAVIS and KELLY, JJ., Concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).