FRANK JOSEPH DESALVO, 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.
Frank DeSalvo was convicted of home invasion robbery with a firearm and sentenced to 10 years in prison. On appeal, the court found no reversible error in the conviction or sentence but identified several erroneously imposed costs that must be stricken, requiring remand for entry of a corrected judgment and sentence.
The conviction and 10-year sentence are affirmed as no reversible error exists. However, the erroneous costs totaling $380 are reversed and the case is remanded for the trial court to enter a corrected judgment and sentence striking these costs. On remand, the court may reimpose the fine, surcharges, and indigent legal assistance fees if proper procedures are followed, but may not reimpose investigative costs that were not requested by the State.
[1] Cost assessments must be orally pronounced at sentencing and have a clear statutory reference in the written sentence or order of probation.
[2] A trial court must identify the statutory authority for costs imposed in the written sentence or order of probation.
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“We do, however, find merit in Appellant's claim that his judgment and sentence contains several erroneously imposed costs.”
Establishes the court's finding that despite affirming the conviction and sentence, certain costs were improperly imposed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeSalvo was convicted of home invasion robbery with a firearm and sentenced to 10 years in prison. The trial court imposed various costs totaling $380…
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 Fines cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was convicted of home invasion robbery with a firearm and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Appellate counsel filed an Anders1 brief and, after our independent review of the record, we find no reversible error in Appellant’s judgment or his 10-year prison sentence. We do, however, find merit in Appellant’s claim that his judgment and sentence contains several erroneously imposed costs.
Appellant preserved this claim through a motion to correct sentencing error filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). The trial court timely ruled on the motion and correctly found several costs to have been erroneously imposed.2 However, the court did not direct the clerk to strike these costs, nor does the *1187record contain a corrected judgment and sentence without these costs. Accordingly, we reverse the imposition of these costs and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected judgment and sentence in conformance with the order on Appellant’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion.
On remand, the trial court may reimpose the stricken fíne, surcharges, and indigent legal assistance fees after following the appropriate procedures, see Harris v. State, 100 So.3d 245, 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (indigent legal assistance fee); Nix v. State, 84 So.3d 424, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (discretionary fines and surcharges), but the court may not reimpose the stricken investigative costs because they were not requested by the State.3 See Vaughn v. State, 65 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); but see Love v. State, 992 So.2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). If the trial court elects not to reimpose the stricken fine, surcharges, and fees, Appellant need not be present for the entry of the corrected judgment and sentence. See Kirkland v. State, 106 So.3d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with directions.
ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and MARSTILLER, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…uested on the record by the appropriate agency”). We reverse the sheriffs investigative cost. On remand, the trial court may not reimpose this investigative cost because there is no record evidence the state requested the cost. See DeSalvo v. State, 107 So. 3d 1185, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Vaughn v. State, 65 So. 3d 138, 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). The fine authorized by section 775.083(1), Florida Statutes, is also discretionary, and the state concedes it was error for the trial court to impose the $100 fine…
-
Ogden v. State, 117 So. 3d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…d costs. The court may reimpose the section 938.25 cost after providing notice to Ogden and following the proper procedures. Nix, 84 So. 3d at 426. It may not, however, reimpose the investigative costs imposed under section 938.27. DeSalvo v. State, 107 So. 3d 1185, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). If the trial court elects not to reimpose the section 938.25 cost, Ogden need not be present for the entry of the corrected judgments and sentences. Id. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. LEWIS, C.J., C…
-
Bradshaw v. State, 148 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ost of defense. See § 938.29(l)(a) and (6), Fla. Stat.; Sharpe v. State, 115 So. 3d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 1st-DCA 2013); Colson v. State, 114 So. 3d 415, 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Youman v. State, 112 So. 3d 693, 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); DeSalvo v. State, 107 So. 3d 1185, 1186-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Accordingly, we reverse the $100 Appointed Counsel Attorney Fee. On remand, the trial court may reimpose the fee if it follows the correct procedure in doing so. In all other respects, the judgment and sentence are af…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- In re App. Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991)
- NIX v. State, 84 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Jamarl Vaughn v. State, 65 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Leondray Kirkland v. State, 106 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Grady Clifford Love v. State, 992 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Harris v. State, 100 So. 3d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)