JOSEPH A. COLLINS, 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.
Collins appeals his convictions for forgery, uttering forged instruments, theft, and fraudulent use of personal identification information. The appellate court affirms the convictions and most of the sentences but reverses the $500 cost of prosecution imposed without adequate documentation, remanding for the trial court to require the State to substantiate any costs exceeding the statutory minimum.
It was error for the trial court to impose the $400 amount over the mandatory $100 cost of prosecution without requiring the State to provide documentation for the additional amount. The $500 cost of prosecution is reversed, and the case is remanded to allow the State to comply with statutory procedural requirements if it seeks to reimpose the additional amount.
[1] A trial court errs by imposing a cost of prosecution in an amount exceeding the mandatory statutory minimum without requiring the State to provide documentation of higher…
[2] The burden rests with the State to substantiate any costs of prosecution sought in excess of the mandatory statutory amounts.
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“The burden is on the State to substantiate the amount of costs incurred in excess of the mandatory statutory amount.”
Establishes that the State must provide documentation to impose costs above the statutory minimum.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a jury trial, Collins was convicted of two counts of forgery, two counts of uttering a forged instrument, two counts of felony petit theft, …
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 Burden Of Proof For Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal brought pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Joseph Collins properly raises a minor *931sentencing error relating to the costs imposed by the trial court. See In re Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d 149, 152 (Fla.1991). We reverse the sentences in part -with regard to the cost of prosecution and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm the convictions and sentences in all other respects.
Following a jury trial, Mr. Collins was convicted of two counts of forgery, two counts of uttering a forged instrument, two counts of felony petit theft, grand theft of $800 or more, and fraudulent use of personal identification information. At the State’s request, but without supporting documentation, the trial court imposed a cost of prosecution in the amount of $500. Mr. Collins filed a motion to correct sentencing error while this appeal was pending, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), in which he raised the issue of the $500 cost of prosecution imposed without supporting documentation. The trial court failed to rule on the motion, and the same is deemed denied. See O’Neill v. State, 841 So.2d 629, 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
Pursuant to section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2010):
Costs for the state attorney shall be set in all cases at no less than $50 per case when a misdemeanor or criminal traffic offense is charged and no less than $100 per case when a felony offense is charged.... The court may set a higher amount upon a showing of sufficient proof of higher costs incurred.
The burden is on the State to substantiate the amount of costs incurred in excess of the mandatory statutory amount. Simmons v. State, 24 So.3d 636, 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
It was error for the trial court to impose the $400 amount over the mandatory $100 cost of prosecution without requiring the State to provide documentation for the additional amount. See id. at 638; Diaz v. State, 901 So.2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Accordingly, we reverse this portion of the sentences, affirm in all other respects, and remand for further proceedings. We note that the additional amount may be reimposed if the State complies with the procedural requirements of the statute. See Simmons, 24 So.3d at 638.
Convictions affirmed, sentences affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
VILLANTI and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dibelka v. State, 326 So. 3d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…or costs incurred, section 938.27(8) expressly requires "a showing of sufficient proof" first, which is not reflected in the record. Accordingly, the State failed to meet its burden to substantiate this additional obligation. See Collins v. State, 145 So. 3d 930, 931 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) ("It was error for the trial court to impose the $400 amount over the mandatory $100 cost of prosecution without requiring the State to provide documentation for the additional amount."). If the State complies with the proce…
-
Matthews v. State, 171 So. 3d 800 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…mposed costs for the state attorney of $150 [*801] pursuant to section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2012). The burden is on the State to substantiate the amount of costs incurred in excess of the mandatory statutory amount of $100. Collins v. State, 145 So. 3d 930, 931 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Mr. Matthews is correct that the State never sought an amount above the mandatory statutory cost; therefore, the imposition of the additional $50 of that cost was improper. See id. Lastly, the trial court imposed a total cos…
-
Bartolone v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…D1639, 2021 WL 2978895, at *1 (Fla. 1st DCA July 15, 2021); Bielec v. State, 297 So. 3d 699, 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020); Reese v. State, 276 So. 3d 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019); Hogle v. State, 250 So. 3d 178, 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Collins v. State, 145 So. 3d 930, 931 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Simmons v. State, 24 So. 3d 636, 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Blanco-Diaz v. State, 618 So. 2d 370, 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The ‘second bite’ problem can be addressed in two different fashions. First, trial courts can ce…
Authorities 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)
- Gunn v. State, 841 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- O'Neill v. State, 841 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Bass v. State, 901 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Diaz v. State, 901 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Simmons v. State, 24 So. 3d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)