JOHN THOMAS PERDUE, 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.
John Thomas Perdue appealed the imposition of fines, surcharges, and Crime Stoppers Trust Fund costs in two criminal cases, arguing the trial court lacked statutory authority and failed to orally pronounce the basis for the penalties. The appellate court agreed and remanded for correction of the sentencing.
The trial court erred by failing to orally pronounce the statutory authority for the $525 fine and surcharge under section 775.083, Florida Statutes. Additionally, the $20 Crime Stoppers Trust Fund costs under section 938.06 were improper because they depend on the validity of the underlying fines and surcharges, which were not properly imposed. All challenged costs must be stricken.
[1] A trial court commits a sentencing error by failing to orally pronounce the statutory authority for imposing a fine and surcharge.
[2] The imposition of costs without statutory authority constitutes a sentencing error for the purposes of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).
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 imposition of costs without statutory authority is a 'sentencing error' for purposes of rule 3.800(b).”
Establishes that Perdue properly preserved the issue and that cost impositions without statutory authority constitute sentencing error subject to appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePerdue was sentenced in two cases (CF07-0765 and CF07-3377) and assessed $525 in fines and surcharges plus $20 Crime Stoppers Trust Fund costs in each…
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 Mandatory Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
John Thomas Perdue challenges the trial court’s imposition of a $525 fíne and surcharge and $20 Crime Stoppers Trust Fund cost in case CF07-0765, and another $525 fine and surcharge and $20 Crime Stoppers Trust Fund cost in case CF07-3377. Perdue properly preserved these issues by filing a motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). See Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562, 574 (Fla.2008) (“[T]he imposition of costs without statutory authority is a ‘sentencing error’ for purposes of rule 3.800(b).” (citing Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 109 (Fla.2000))). However, the trial court denied Perdue’s motion as to these claims.
The State concedes the trial court 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 $525 in fines and surcharges were not properly imposed, the additional $20 costs under section 938.06 must also fail. Masengale, 969 So.2d at 1219; Dadds, 946 So.2d at 1130. Accordingly, the $525 in fines and surcharges and $20 Crime Stoppers Trust Fund costs in both cases must be stricken.
Affirmed, but remanded for entry of a corrected judgment striking the $525 in fines and surcharges and $20 Crime Stoppers Trust Fund costs.
WALLACE and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryant v. State, 47 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…7). Fines under this section are discretionary and must be pronounced orally at sentencing. Dadds v. State, 946 So. 2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). We strike the $500 fine because the trial court failed to pronounce it orally. See Perdue v. State, 17 So. 3d 1283, 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Masengale v. State, 969 So. 2d 1218, 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The written judgment also includes an additional five percent surcharge on the $500 fine in the amount of $25, pursuant to section 938.04, Florida Statutes (200…
-
DE LA Fuente v. State, 58 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…39.01, Florida Statutes, Prosecution/Investigative Costs; and 6) Section 318.18(13)(a), Florida Statutes, Court Facilities. He argues that because the costs were imposed without proper statutory authority, they must be stricken. See Perdue v. State, 17 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). We agree. The correct statutory authorities are as follows: 1) Section 938.03, Florida Statutes (2007), Crimes Compensation Trust Fund; 2) Section 938.01(1), Additional Court Cost Clearing Trust Fund; 3) Section 938.15, Criminal…
-
Curay Davis, JR. v. State, 268 So. 3d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…trolled substance within 1000 feet of a proscribed location. Rather, the fine was discretionary and the trial court was thus required to pronounce the statutory authority for the fine, section 775.083, Florida Statutes (2017). See Perdue v. State, 17 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding that the trial court erred in failing to orally pronounce the statutory authority for the discretionary $525 fines and surcharges). Because the trial court erred by failing to orally pronounce the statutory authority, we…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2008)
- Dadds v. State, 946 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Little v. State, 969 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)