MICHAEL J. GILES, 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 the trial court erred in imposing a discretionary fine and related surcharges without proper pronouncement and procedure.
Appellant was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. The trial court imposed a fine, surcharge, and costs without specifically pronounc…
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 Discretionary Fines cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Michael Giles appeals his judgment and sentence for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon in connection with his actions during the early morning hours of February 6, 2010. We affirm his conviction without comment, but we find the state’s concession of error to be proper with respect to the fines, surcharges, and costs imposed at sentencing.
“The fine authorized by section 775.083(1) is discretionary and, thus, it was error for the trial court to impose the $1,050 fine under this statute without specifically pronouncing the fine at the sentencing hearing.” Nix v. State, 84 So.3d 424, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Additionally, “[b]ecause this fine was erroneously imposed, the surcharge under section 938.04, which is based on the amount of fine, must also be reversed.” Id. Similarly, under the relevant version of the statute, because the trial court erred in imposing the fine, the $20 court cost imposed pursuant to section 938.06 must also be stricken. See Sanders v. State, 101 So.3d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Mallory v. State, 70 So.3d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Pullam v. State, 55 So.3d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
On remand, the trial court may reimpose the assessments after providing notice to Appellant and following the proper procedure. Nix, 84 So.3d at 426.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crapser v. State, 148 So. 3d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ection 938.04, Florida Statutes (2007), and the $20 cost pursuant [*795] to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2007), was erroneous because the trial court did not individually pronounce the discretionary $2100 fíne during sentencing. Giles v. State, 103 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Nix v. State, 84 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Mallory v. State, 70 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). On remand, the trial court may reimpose the fíne, surcharge, and cost after providing proper notice and an opportunity to be h…
-
Cannon v. State, 225 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…t and sentence will be entered. . When originally sentencing appellant, the court ordered a lump sum of court costs without giving appellant notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the discretionary costs. That was improper. Giles v. State, 103 So. 3d 1058, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding a fine pursuant to section 775.083 was discretionary, and because it and its accompanying surcharge pursuant to section 938.04 were not specifically announced during the sentencing hearing, they should be stricken)…
Authorities Cited
- NIX v. State, 84 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Sharyon Sanders v. State, 101 So. 3d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Clark v. State, 55 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Pullam v. State, 55 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Sterling S. Mallory v. State, 70 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)