LARONALD D. SPEAR, 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 Florida First District Court of Appeal, sitting en banc, resolved whether a $20 court cost for crime stoppers programs must be imposed upon conviction regardless of whether a fine is imposed. The court held that following the 2010 amendment to section 938.06(1), the $20 cost is a mandatory assessment upon any criminal conviction, not merely an additional surcharge on fines.
The $20 cost must be imposed when a person is convicted of any criminal offense whether or not a fine is also imposed. Following the July 1, 2010 amendment to section 938.06(1), the only prerequisite to imposition of the $20 cost is conviction of a criminal offense; the cost is no longer merely an additional surcharge on any fine imposed.
[1] The 2010 amendment to section 938.06(1), Florida Statutes, mandates a $20 court cost upon conviction of any criminal offense, irrespective of whether a fine is imposed.
[2] Prior to July 1, 2010, section 938.06(1), Florida Statutes, required the $20 crime stoppers court cost to be imposed only as a surcharge on an existing fine.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Although both versions of the statute include the language "[i]n addition to any fine prescribed by law," the only prerequisite to the imposition of the $20 cost following the 2010 amendment is that a person be convicted of any criminal offense.”
Establishes that the 2010 amendment changed the prerequisite for imposing the cost from requiring an accompanying fine to requiring only a conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaronald Spear was convicted of a criminal offense under section 893.13, Florida Statutes. The trial court imposed a $20 court cost for the Crime Stop…
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 Statutory Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
REHEARING EN BANC
We grant the State’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our original opinion in this case, and sua sponte consider the case en banc. This case addresses whether the $20 court cost imposed for crime stoppers programs in criminal cases pursuant to section 938.06(1), Florida Statutes (2010), is mandatory regardless of whether any fine is imposed. Prior to July 1, 2010, section 938.06(1) provided in part, “In addition to any fine prescribed by law for any criminal offense, there is hereby assessed as a court cost an additional surcharge of $20 on such fine, which shall be imposed by all county and circuit courts and collected by the clerks of the courts together with such fine.” Based upon this version of the statute, we issued several opinions holding that it was error to impose the $20 cost where no fine was imposed or where a fine was wrongfully imposed. See, e.g., Harris v. State, 100 So.3d 245, 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Chamblee v. State, 93 So.3d 1184, 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Clavelle v. State, 80 So.3d 456, 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Mallory v. State, 70 So.3d 738, 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Pullam v. State, 55 So.3d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Lang v. State, 856 So.2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
The Legislature amended section 938.06(1) effective July 1, 2010, to provide *233that “[i]n addition to any fine prescribed by law, when a person is convicted of any criminal offense, the county or circuit court shall assess a court cost of $20.” Thereafter, we issued opinions in seven cases, which were consolidated for briefing purposes and where the State conceded error on the subject, striking the $20 cost imposed pursuant to the 2010 version of section 938.06 because no fine was imposed. See Pruitt v. State, 98 So.3d 237, 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Pruitt v. State, 98 So.3d 236, 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Pruitt v. State, 98 So.3d 235, 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Pruitt v. State, 98 So.3d 234, 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Pruitt v. State, 98 So.3d 233, 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Pruitt v. State, 98 So.3d 232, 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Pruitt v. State, 98 So.3d 231, 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). In doing so, we cited to our Pullam opinion, which addressed section 938.06 prior to the amendment. One day after the Pruitt decisions were issued, we set forth as dicta in Sanders v. State, 101 So.3d 373, 377 n. 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), that effective July 1, 2010, section 938.06(1) was amended to provide that the $20 assessment for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund was a mandatory cost rather than an additional surcharge on any fine imposed.
Reconsidering this issue en banc, we recede from our Pruitt decisions with respect to section 938.06 and determine that the reasoning as set forth in Sanders is correct. Although both versions of the statute include the language “[i]n addition to any fine prescribed by law,” the only prerequisite to the imposition of the $20 cost following the 2010 amendment is that a person be convicted of any criminal offense. No longer is the cost considered “an additional surcharge ... on such fine” as was the case prior to the amendment. Therefore, the $20 cost must be imposed when a person is convicted of a criminal offense whether or not a fine is also imposed. Appellant’s judgments and sentences are hereby AFFIRMED.1
BENTON, C.J., WOLF, DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO, LEWIS, ROBERTS, CLARK, WETHERELL, ROWE, MARSTILLER, RAY, SWANSON, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kalvin Youman v. State, 112 So. 3d 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…e $20 cost as an “additional surcharge” in 1D12-2470 and 1D12-2472, which involved January 2009 offenses. This is true under the particular facts of these two cases. See § 938.06(1), Fla. Stat. (2008); Kirkland,, 106 So. 3d at 5; cf. Spear v. State, 109 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (rehearing en banc) (finding no error in imposing the $20 court cost pursuant to section 938.06, as amended, effective July 1, 2010). Accordingly, we strike the $100 indigent legal assistance lien imposed under section 938.29(l)…
-
Fredrick Colson v. State, 114 So. 3d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…been stricken as well. However, effective July 1, 2010, section 938.06 was amended to provide, that the $20 assessment for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund is a mandatory cost rather than an additional surcharge on any fine imposed. See Spear v. State, 109 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan.16, 2013) (en banc). As the amendment took effect before the date of the appellant's offense, the $20 cost should not be stricken.…
-
Sims v. State, 110 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…e v. State, 80 So. 3d 456, 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Mallory v. State, 70 So. 3d 738, 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Pullam v. State, 55 So. 3d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Lang v. State, 856 So. 2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); see also Spear v. State, 109 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that the $20 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.06(1) is mandatory whether or not a fine is imposed for offenses committed after the July 1, 2010, effective date of the amendment to the statute). We also conclude tha…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (18 total)
- State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 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)
- Lang v. State, 856 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Sterling S. Mallory v. State, 70 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Baldwin v. State, 80 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Clavelle v. State, 80 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Jones v. State, 93 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Derrell J. Chamblee v. State, 93 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)