ANTRAVEIUS TYRELL BAKER, 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.
The court held that certain costs imposed in the written sentencing order were improper because they were not orally announced or contested, and affirmed the conviction.
Appellant was convicted of trafficking cocaine. The written sentencing order included costs not orally pronounced and a public defender fee assessed w…
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 Public Defender Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Amended Opinion
Antraveius T. Baker challenges his judgment of conviction and sentence for trafficking in more than 200 grams but less than 400 grams of cocaine. We affirm the conviction without comment, but we reverse certain costs imposed by the trial court and remand for a corrected sentencing order.
When the trial court orally announced sentence, it did not impose an assessment for (i) the sheriffs office investigation costs, (ii) the prosecution investigative cost, and (iii) the FDLE operation trust fund. These costs, which were assessed against appellant in the written order of sentence, are therefore improper. See Pullam v. State, 55 So.3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Further, because appellant was not given the opportunity to contest the public defender fee, it too was erroneously assessed. See § 938.29(5), Fla. Stat. (2010). On remand, these costs are to be struck.
We otherwise affirm appellant’s conviction, and reject his argument that section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), is unconstitutional. See Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
VAN NORTWICK, THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…orida Statutes (2010). Assessing this cost is discretionary, and it was error to impose it without notice or hearing and without specifically identifying it at sentencing. See Kirkland v. State, 106 So. 3d 4, 4-5 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Baker v. State, 86 So. 3d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). See also Lippwe v. State, 152 So. 3d 782, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (ruling that investigative fees pursuant to section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes “must be requested on the record by the appropriate agency”). We reverse the…
-
Leondray Kirkland v. State, 106 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…rial court and remand for correction of sentencing errors. The State properly concedes that the trial court should have orally pro [*5] nounced the $100 investigative cost, as it is a discretionary cost and not a mandatory cost. See Baker v. State, 86 So. 3d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (citing Pullam v. State, 55 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)). The State also correctly concedes that the Public Defender fee should be struck because the trial court did not advise Appellant of his right to contest the fee…
-
Williams v. State, 224 So. 3d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…cuit Court case number F02-37491B. We dismiss the petition as unauthorized. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004). Williams has failed to obtain relief in other related cases challenging the Miami-Dade proceedings. See Williams v. State, 86 So. 3d 1208 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); [*862] Williams v. State, 178 So. 3d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Williams v. State, 178 So. 3d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Williams v. State, 202 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Accordingly, after receiving the instant petition, we or…
Authorities Cited
- Flagg v. State, 74 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Holmes v. State, 74 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Clark v. State, 55 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Pullam v. State, 55 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)