STEPHEN RAY STICKLES, 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.
Stephen Ray Stickles appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and fleeing/eluding law enforcement. The court affirmed all convictions and sentences except for costs and fees imposed on the fleeing conviction, holding that when separately charged offenses are consolidated for trial, costs and fees may only be assessed once for the single consolidated case, not separately for each case number.
The court held that when separately charged offenses are consolidated for trial, they effectively become one case and costs and fees may be assessed only once, not separately for each case number. Therefore, the court affirmed Stickles' convictions but reversed the sentence on the fleeing conviction and remanded to strike the duplicatively imposed costs and fees.
[1] When separately charged offenses are consolidated for prosecution, the offenses effectively become counts within a single case for the purpose of assessing costs and fees…
[2] Costs and fees may generally be imposed per case, not per count.
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 wording of rule 3.151(b) indicates that when separately charged offenses are consolidated for prosecution, one case is effectively created and it is handled as such until the criminal proceedings conclude.”
Establishes the court's interpretation that consolidated cases should be treated as a single case for purposes of assessing costs
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStickles was charged separately with first-degree murder (case number 2007CF002942A) and fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer in a…
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 Fleeing Or Attempting To Elude A Law Enforcement Officer cases and more on FLexlaw
Stephen Ray Stickles appeals his convictions and sentences for first degree murder and for fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer in an agency vehicle at high speed. We affirm in all respects, except as to the trial court’s imposition of costs and fees for the latter conviction.
The state initially charged Stickles separately and the cases were numbered 2007CF002942A (first degree murder) and 2007CF002943A (fleeing or attempting to elude). Later, the state consolidated the cases for trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.151(b). As part of sentencing, the court imposed identical statutory costs and fees for each case number although there was but one trial. The trial court reasoned that notwithstanding consolidation for trial, the two cases remained separate and costs could be assessed accordingly.
Generally, costs may be imposed per case and not per count. See Rafael v. State, 679 So.2d 314, 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Hunter v. State, 651 So.2d 1258, 1260-61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Hollingsworth v. State, 632 So.2d 176, 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). But here we have consolidated “cases.” The wording of rule 3.151(b) indicates that when separately charged offenses are consolidated for prosecution, one case is effectively created and it is handled as such until the criminal proceedings conclude. The rule states: (Emphasis added.) Thus the charges against Stickles essentially became two counts within one case, and costs and fees could only be assessed once. Cf. Op. Atty. Gen. Fla. 97-20 (1997) (relying on Holl-ingsworth to conclude that “[i]n instances where multiple offenses are assigned separate case numbers, but are consolidated for prosecution, the costs assessed in section 27.3455, Florida Statutes, are to be assessed for prosecution of the single consolidated case and may not be imposed for each separate case number”). We therefore affirm Stickles’ conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer but reverse the sentence and remand to the trial court to strike the statutory costs and fees imposed. We affirm his conviction and sentence for first degree murder.
Two or more indictments or informa-tions charging related offenses shall be consolidated for trial on a timely motion by a defendant or by the state. The procedure thereafter shall be the same as if the persecution were under a single indictment or information. Failure to timely move for consolidation constitutes a waiver of the right to consolidation.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
HAWKES, C.J., PADOVANO and MARSTILLER, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brenton McNeil v. State, 215 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 2017)…1995); Hollingsworth v. State, 632 So. 2d 176, 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)); majority op. at 59-60 (citing Mills v. State, 672 So. 2d 873, 873-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)); see also McNeil, 162 So. 3d at 281 (Sawaya, J., dissenting) (citing Stickles v. State, 44 So. 3d 653, 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Webster v. State, 705 So. 2d 970, 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Van Vorous v. State, 696 So. 2d 1317, 1318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Seeker v. State, 674 So. 2d 853, 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Neal v. State, 669 So. 2d 1113, 1114 (Fla.…1 / 2
-
Chrystie v. State, 95 So. 3d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…nd amended to reflect the court’s oral pronouncement. The State appropriately concedes error. Appellant also argues that the court erred in imposing the $50 monthly supervision cost in each of counts three through nine. He cites Stickles v. State, 44 So. 3d 653, 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), for the proposition that costs may be imposed “per case” and not “per count.” Thus, he argues that in addition to reducing the supervision cost to $25 per month for the first two years as orally pronounced, the sentencing a…
-
Brenton McNEIL v. State, 162 So. 3d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…other cases interpreting similar costs statutes in criminal cases state the per-case application as a general rule or simply reverse the order imposing costs per count and remand for entry of an order imposing costs per case. See Stickles v. State, 44 So. 3d 653, 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“Generally, costs may be imposed per case and not per count.”); Webster v. State, 705 So. 2d 970, 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“In addition, statutory costs must be assessed per case, not per count.”); Van Vorous v. State, 696 S…
Authorities Cited
- Hunter v. State, 651 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Hollingsworth v. State, 632 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Rafael v. State, 679 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)