GARY J. HALL, 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.
Gary Hall appealed from an order denying his motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence imposed after his 2004 plea to multiple burglary and theft charges. The court affirmed the trial court's rejection of Hall's challenge to incarceration costs but reversed and remanded regarding sentencing documentation deficiencies.
The court affirmed that incarceration costs of $50/day are constitutional and properly imposed. However, the court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to attach documents conclusively refuting Hall's sentence claim, placing the burden on the trial court to provide such documentation on remand.
[1] A trial court has the authority to impose a daily charge for the costs of incarceration, and such statutes are constitutional.
[2] A trial court must attach portions of the record that conclusively refute a defendant's claim in a motion to correct illegal sentence.
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 has the burden of attaching portions of the record which conclusively refute a Rule 3.800(a) claim”
Establishes the procedural requirement that necessitated reversal and remand despite potential merits of the sentence claim.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2004, Hall pled no contest to burglary of a dwelling while armed, two counts of grand theft, five additional grand theft counts, two counts of burg…
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 Costs Of Incarceration cases and more on FLexlaw
Gary Hall appeals from an order summarily denying his Rule 3.800(a)1 motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part.
In 2004, pursuant to a plea agreement, Hall pled no contest to burglary of a dwelling while armed, two counts of grand theft — statutory property, five counts of grand theft, two counts of burglary of a dwelling/structure/conveyance, and one count of burglary of a dwelling. With regard to sentencing, the trial court’s order reflects:
[Hall] was sentenced to 12 years in the Department of Corrections, 10 years minimum/mandatory on the Burglary of a Dwelling While Armed convictions, with credit for time served, and to 5 years on each of the other convictions, followed by 5 years probation. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently one with the other and with any other sentence [Hall] was serving. He was assessed financial requirements of $1,000.00 fines, $342.85 costs, plus 5% fee, $40.00 Public Defender fee, and $50.00 per day cost of incarceration.
No documents were attached to the trial court’s order.
In his motion, Hall raised two points. First, he alleged that the trial court lacked the authority to impose costs for his incarceration. The trial court properly found this argument to be without merit. See Ilkanic v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 705 So.2d 1371 (Fla.1998) (statute authorizing imposition of $50.00/day charge for costs of incarceration is constitutional).
Second, Hall alleged that the sentence on his second-degree felony convictions exceeded the statutory maximum. While this argument would appear to be without merit, the State concedes that reversal and remand is required because the trial court did not attach any documents to its order. See Friss v. State, 881 So.2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that the trial court has the burden of attaching portions of the record which conclusively refute a Rule 3.800(a) claim). We suggest that upon remand the trial court also review the sentences for the third degree felony convictions to determine if the maximum permitted sentences were exceeded.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED.
MONACO, C.J. and COHEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ilkanic v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 705 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1998)
- Friss v. State, 881 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)