REYNALDO TORRES, 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.
Reynaldo Torres appealed his convictions for robbery with a firearm, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, and armed false imprisonment, challenging primarily the cost assessments imposed at sentencing. The court affirmed Torres' judgments and sentences but remanded to correct cost orders, striking a probation order entered without jurisdiction.
The court affirmed Torres' convictions and sentences but remanded to correct the cost orders. The written sentence must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement of $100 in prosecution costs rather than $150. The $225 felony cost must be reduced to $200 based on the version of section 938.05(l)(a) in effect at the time of the offenses. The May 11, 2009, probation order was void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter it during the pendency of the appeal.
[1] A written sentencing order must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement of costs.
[2] A defendant must preserve the issue of the imposition of costs of prosecution by raising a contemporaneous objection at sentencing to be entitled to appellate review.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“if a discrepancy exists, the written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement”
Establishes the principle that written sentencing orders must match the trial court's oral pronouncement when there is a discrepancy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTorres was convicted of robbery with a firearm, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon causing great bodily harm, two counts of aggravated assault wi…
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 Jurisdiction To Modify Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Reynaldo Torres appeals his judgments and sentences for robbery with a firearm, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon causing great bodily harm, two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and two counts of armed false imprisonment. We affirm Torres’ judgments and sentences but remand for corrections to the orders on costs. We also strike a probation order because the trial court lacked jurisdiction at the time it entered the order.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court orally imposed a $100 cost of prosecution and “all costs as required by statute.” The written order imposed $495 in costs, which included a $150 prosecution cost and a $225 cost for felonies pursuant to section 938.05(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2006). On October 17, 2008, the trial court entered a probation order reflecting $547 in total court costs. Torres filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), contending that the $150 prosecution cost must either be stricken or corrected to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Torres also argued that the $225 cost must be reduced to $200 based on the version of section 938.05(l)(a) that was in effect at the time of his offenses, and that the probation order must be corrected to reflect the proper cost amount. Because the trial court did not rule on the motion within sixty days, the motion is deemed denied. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B). The trial court subsequently entered a May 11, 2009, probation order that added probationary terms to five of Torres’ offenses.
On appeal, Torres contends that the trial court erred in imposing a cost of prosecution because the cost was not requested by the State and because no supporting documentation was presented for this cost. This issue was not preserved for appellate review. See Rivera v. State, 34 So.3d 207, 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding that issue was not preserved for review where defendant failed to raise a contemporaneous objection when the trial court announced it was imposing costs of prosecution). The written order, however, must be corrected to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of $100 in prosecution costs. See Guerra v. State, 927 So.2d 248, 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that if a discrepancy exists, the written sentence must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement). Torres properly preserved this issue by filing a rule 3.800(b) motion to correct sentencing error.
Torres also argues, and we agree, that the $225 cost must be reduced to $200 based on the version of section 938.05(l)(a) that was in effect on the date of his offenses. Finally, Torres correctly contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the May 11, 2009, probation order because the order added probationary terms to five of Torres’ offenses. See Jones v. State, 814 So.2d 1126, 1126-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to change Jones’s sentence during the pendency of the appeal, the probation order was void.”).
*916Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected order reflecting $100 in prosecution costs and $200 in costs pursuant to section 938.05(l)(a). The trial court is also directed to correct the October 17, 2008, probation order to reflect the amount of $420 in total court costs and to strike the May 11, 2009, probation order.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
NORTHCUTT and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marvalius Laclut Swift v. State, 53 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…ift correctly contends that the assessment of $225 to the Criminal Justice Trust Fund must be reduced to $200 based on the version of section 938.05(l)(a) in effect at the time of his offenses. See § 938.05(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007); Torres v. State, 42 So. 3d 914, 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). With respect to the imposition of a $100 public defender fee, Mr. Swift is also correct that under the applicable version of the statute, he would only be liable for such fee if the trial court pronounced it at sentencing an…
-
Clavelle v. State, 80 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…, when the statute authorized only a $200 assessment. See § 938.05, Fla. Stat. (2007). On remand the court should reduce this charge to the $200 amount as authorized in the statute which was in effect on the date of the offense. See Torres v. State, 42 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). The court also imposed a $20 charge as “Additional Court Costs” for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund, under section 938.06, Florida Statutes, which provides that this assessment is to be made in “addition to any fine....” See § 938…
-
Derrell J. Chamblee v. State, 93 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…oning, Appellant contends that the governing statutes relating to the imposition of the various charges, costs, and fees are the versions that were in effect on the beginning date of his ongoing criminal enterprise, ie, in 2003. See Torres v. State, 42 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Williamson v. State, 852 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Cairl v. State, 833 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Gross v. State, 820 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (affirming trial court’s decision, in ease involving ongoing criminal…
Authorities Cited
- Rivera v. State, 34 So. 3d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Guerra v. State, 927 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Jones v. State, 814 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)