STANLEY SIMS, 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.
Stanley Sims appealed his grand theft conviction and sentence in an Anders v. California appeal. The court affirmed his conviction and sentence but struck certain statutory costs imposed at sentencing because they were not properly applicable given the timing of the offense and the trial court's decision to strike the fine.
The $20 Crime Stoppers Trust Fund cost must be stricken because the offense occurred before the July 1, 2010 effective date of the amendment making that cost mandatory. The $100 cost of prosecution must also be stricken because the offense was committed before the 2008 amendment that made such costs mandatory, and there was no indication the State requested or established the $100 cost.
[1] A $20 cost for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund imposed pursuant to section 938.06(1), Florida Statutes, must be stricken if the offense occurred between May 2007 and Februa…
[2] A $100 cost of prosecution imposed pursuant to section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes, must be stricken if the offense was committed prior to the effective date of the 2008…
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“because the trial court struck the fíne imposed and because the offense occurred between May 2007 and February 2008, the $20 cost for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund imposed pursuant to section 938.06(1), Florida Statutes, must also be stricken.”
Establishes the primary holding regarding the Crime Stoppers cost and its relationship to the struck fine and the statutory effective date.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Stanley Sims was convicted of grand theft for an offense that occurred between May 2007 and February 2008. The trial court imposed a sentenc…
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 Mandatory Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm Appellant’s conviction and sentence for grand theft. However, because the trial court struck the fíne imposed and because the offense occurred between May 2007 and February 2008, the $20 cost for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund imposed pursuant to section 938.06(1), Florida Statutes, must also be stricken. See 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); 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 that the $100 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes, must be stricken given that the offense was committed prior to the effective date of the 2008 amendment which imposed a mandatory cost of no less than $100 when a felony offense is charged. See Massengale v. State, 69 So.3d 1095, 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (accepting the appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in imposing the mandatory $100 cost of prosecution pursuant to the 2008 version of section 938.27(8) because the appellant’s offenses were committed before the amendment’s effective date); see also Hills v. State, 90 So.3d 927, 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (noting that while the imposition of the costs of prosecution pursuant to section 938.27 was historically discretionary and, therefore, required a request by the State for such costs, the 2008 amendment removed the trial court’s discretion to impose the costs and created mandatory minimum costs). The record provides no indication that the State requested or established $100 for the cost of prosecution.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM Appellant’s conviction and sentence, STRIKE the $20 and $100 costs, and REMAND for entry of a corrected judgment.
CLARK, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crapser v. State, 148 So. 3d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
Authorities Cited (14 total)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- 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)
- Hills v. State, 90 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Jackson v. State, 90 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Laronald D. Spear v. State, 109 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Baldwin v. State, 80 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Clavelle v. State, 80 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)