JUAN DE LA FUENTE, 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.
Juan De la Fuente appealed his felony battery conviction and sentence, challenging the statutory authority cited for various court costs imposed at sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reversed and remanded the cost items, finding that the trial court cited outdated statutory provisions and failed to timely correct the sentencing error.
The appellate court reversed the cost items imposed under outdated statutory authority and remanded for entry of a corrected costs order citing the proper statutory provisions. Although the trial court's order correcting the costs was issued outside the sixty-day window and thus deemed a nullity under the rules, De la Fuente properly preserved the sentencing error for appellate review.
[1] A motion to correct sentencing error under Fla. …
[2] A trial court's order granting a motion to correct sentencing error, if not entered within the sixty-day timeframe prescribed by Fla. …
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“Because the costs were imposed without proper statutory authority, they must be stricken.”
Establishes the court's core holding that costs must be struck when imposed under outdated or incorrect statutory authority.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDe la Fuente was convicted of felony battery. At sentencing, the trial court imposed costs citing six statutory authorities related to various crimina…
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 Timeliness Of Post-Conviction Relief Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
Juan De la Fuente appeals his conviction and sentence for felony battery. See § 784.041, Fla. Stat. (2007). We affirm, except for certain costs items, the judgment and sentence. We write to address costs challenged by Mr. De la Fuente. He filed a timely motion to correct sentencing error. See Fla. R.CrJm. P. 3.800(b)(2). Mr. De la Fuente alleged that the following statutory authorities listed in the trial court’s order imposing costs were outdated:
1) Section 960.20, Florida Statutes, Crimes Compensation Trust Fund;
2) Section 943.25(3), Florida Statutes, Criminal Justice Trust Fund;
3) Section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes,
• Criminal Justice Education by Municipalities and Counties;
4) Section 27.3455, Florida Statutes, Local Government Criminal Justice Trust Fund;
5) Section 939.01, 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 Justice Education for Local Government;
4) Section 938.05(l)(a), Additional Court Costs for Felonies;
5) Section 938.27(1), Judgment for Costs on Conviction; (includes prosecution/investigative costs); and
6) Section 939.185(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), Assessment of Additional Court Costs and Surcharges.
The statutory authorities for the Domestic Violence Trust Fund and Rape Crisis Program Trust Fund surcharges, listed on the costs order as “Other” and citing no statutes, are sections 938.08 and 938.085, respectively.
The trial court issued an order granting Mr. De la Fuente’s motion and modified sentencing to cite the correct statutory authority, but not within sixty days as rule 3.800(b)(2) requires. Because the order was not entered timely, it is a nullity and the motion is deemed denied. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2); Whitmore *396 v. State, 910 So.2d 308, 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing O’Neill v. State, 841 So.2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)). However, Mr. De la Fuente properly preserved the issue for our review. See McGuire v. State, 779 So.2d 571, 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (explaining that rule 3.800(b)(2) provision deeming motion denied if trial judge does not rule within sixty days allows defendant to preserve alleged sentencing error for appellate review). We reverse and remand for entry of a corrected costs order.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CRENSHAW and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fritztin Regisma v. State, 120 So. 3d 144 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…dering the order a nullity and the motion denied. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B) (“If no order is filed within 60 days, the motion shall be considered denied.”); Sessions v. State, 907 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); De La Fuente v. State, 58 So. 3d 394, 395-96 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Since the State concedes on appeal that the inconsistencies [*146] between the trial court’s oral pronouncement and written sentencing documents as to counts II and III are the result of clerical error, we remand with ins…
-
Hamiter v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…within sixty days).1 We therefore find ourselves in the unhappy position of having to declare the order—and the trial court's ensuing amended judgment rendered April 25, 2019—a nullity and deeming the motion denied. See id.; De La Fuente v. State, 58 So. 3d 394, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). From the limited record before us, however, we agree with the trial court that the $50,000 fine plus $2500 surcharge was duplicative of a fine that had previously been imposed. Accordingly, we reverse the deemed denial of…
Authorities Cited
- Gunn v. State, 841 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- O'Neill v. State, 841 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- McGUIRE v. State, 779 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Whitmore v. State, 910 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Perdue v. State, 17 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)