CLEAVE ADAM THOMAS, 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.
Court affirmed robbery and aggravated battery convictions but remanded to correct sentencing costs imposed in violation of Florida Statutes section 938.05(l)(a), reducing costs from $275 to $225.
A trial court errs when it imposes court costs in multiple sections of a judgment for felony convictions, resulting in costs exceeding the statutory maximum of $225 per section 938.05(l)(a).
[1] Section 938.05(l)(a), Florida Statutes, requires a single $225 court cost assessment for conviction of one or more felonies, and costs cannot be imposed in multiple secti…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCleave Thomas was convicted of robbery and aggravated battery. The trial court imposed court costs of $250 in one section of the judgment and $25 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 Court Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
In this Anders1 appeal, Cleave Thomas, Appellant, challenges his judgments and sentences for robbery and aggravated battery. We affirm Appellant’s judgments and sentences. However, we agree with Appellant’s contention, in his timely motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), that the trial court erred in imposing certain costs under section 938.05(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2009). Section 938.05(l)(a) provides that a trial court must impose court costs of $225 if a person is found guilty of a felony or felonies under Florida law. While the trial court sentenced Appellant for two felonies, the trial court mistakenly imposed court costs pursuant to section 938.05(l)(a) in two sections of the judgment. In one section of the judgment, the trial imposed costs of $250.00; in the other section, it imposed costs of $25. The trial court therefore imposed $50 more in costs than statutorily allowed as provided by section 938.05(l)(a). Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s judgments and sentences, but we remand for the trial court to enter a corrected order reflecting $225 in costs pursuant to section 938.05(l)(a).
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
WOLF, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Derrell J. Chamblee v. State, 93 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…$20.00 as a court cost surcharge in addition to any fine pursuant to section 938.06(1), Florida Statutes. Appellant preserved this issue by filing a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing errors. Thomas v. State, 76 So. 3d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Parker v. State, 44 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Because the trial court did not rule on this motion within sixty days of the filing date, it is deemed denied. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B); Long v. State, 886 So. 2d 280, 2…
-
Pilar Paulino v. BJ'S Wholesale Club, Inc., 106 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ore, de novo review is appropriate. Cf. Osmulski v. Oldsmar Fine Wine, Inc., 93 So. 3d 389, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding that, because ruling on jury instruction decided as an issue of law, de novo review appropriate); Univ. of Miami v. Francois, 76 So. 3d 360, 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (recognizing questions of law are reviewed de novo), review denied, 99 So. 3d 943 (Fla. 2012). To constitute a final order, an order of dismissal need not state that the dismissal is “with prejudice” or expressly deny any ri…
-
Daniel v. Morris, 181 So. 3d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…d ASSOCIATED which entitles MORRIS and ASSOCIATED to Summary Final Judgment as a matter of law. See Rucks v. [P]ushman, 541 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), Caccavella v. Silverman, 814 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA [2002]), [Univ.] of Miami v. Francois, 76 So. 3d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). This timely appeal followed. We. .review orders granting summary judgment de novo. Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000). Daniel argues that the trial court erred in applying the initial…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)