RYAN HERMAN, 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.
Ryan Herman appeals a $1,000 fine imposed as part of his sentence, arguing it was an unconstitutional penalty for exercising his right to a jury trial by proceeding partway through trial before accepting a plea. The Florida appellate court agreed that the fine was imposed solely because Herman exercised his Sixth Amendment right to trial, which is unconstitutional.
A trial court may not impose a fine simply because the defendant exercised his or her right to a trial, as any judicially imposed penalty that needlessly deters the exercise of the Sixth Amendment right to demand a jury trial is unconstitutional. The case is remanded for resentencing on the limited issue of the fine before a different judge.
[1] A trial court may not impose a fine solely because a defendant exercised their right to a jury trial.
[2] A judicially imposed penalty that needlessly deters the exercise of the Sixth Amendment right to demand a jury trial is unconstitutional.
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“I usually fine people who go to trial. And the reason for that is .it's punitory [sic]. He's taking up public resource, he needs to pay.”
The trial judge's explicit statement of the reason for imposing the fine, showing it was imposed as a penalty for exercising the right to trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHerman was charged with attempted second-degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Midway th…
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 Punitive Fines cases and more on FLexlaw
Ryan Herman appeals the imposition of a $1,000 fine as part of his sentence where the fine was imposed solely because Herman exercised his right to have his case resolved by a jury. The State properly concedes error.
Herman was charged with attempted second-degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Midway through his jury trial, Herman accepted a plea offer from the State. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the State would dismiss the attempted murder charge (Count I) and Herman would plead no contest and be adjudicated guilty on the other two counts. The agreement called for Herman to receive a fifteen-year prison sentence on Count II and a concurrent ten-year prison sentence on Count III.1
The trial judge conducted a plea colloquy with Herman and accepted his plea. After imposing the agreed-upon prison sentence, the judge questioned the attorneys as to whether there had been an agreement with regard to the imposition of a fine. When neither counsel responded to the inquiry, the trial judge stated:
I’ll fine him a thousand dollars. I’ll refer that to collections court. I usually fine people who go to trial. And the reason for that is .it’s punitory [sic]. He’s taking up public resource, he needs to pay. He can pay when he gets out of prison at a rate of $50 a month through collections court.
A trial court may impose a fine in addition to any penalty prescribed by section 775.082, Florida Statutes., See, § 775.083(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). However, a trial court may not impose a fine simply *454because the defendant exercised his or her right to a trial. “[A]ny judicially imposed penalty which needlessly ... deters the exercise of the Sixth Amendment right to demand a jury trial is patently unconstitutional.” Wilson v. State, 845 So.2d 142, 150 (Fla.2003); see also Walek v. State, 129 So.3d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“When the comments of a sentencing court may reasonably be viewed as suggesting that the sentence was, at least in part, based on the defendant’s decision to go to trial, resentencing before a different judge is appropriate”)
The only part of the sentence challenged by Herman is the imposition of the fine. We therefore remand for resentencing on this limited issue before a different judge.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard v. State, 213 So. 3d 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…he went to trial. The court then imposed a $500 “jury fee,” believing that such a fee in a criminal case was not a sanction against appellant for electing his constitutional right to go to trial. We disagree. In the analogous case Herman v. State, 161 So. 3d 452, 453-54 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014), the Fifth District found that a $1,000 “jury fee” was unconstitutional, reasoning that “a trial court may not impose a fine simply because the defendant exercised his or her right to a trial,” and that “ ‘[a]ny judiciall…
-
Hodges v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2026)…maintain innocence. See generally Moore v. State, 286 So. 3d 887, 887–88 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). Accordingly, we affirm Hodges's conviction, but vacate the judgment and sentence and remand for resentencing before a different judge. See Herman v. State, 161 So. 3d 452, 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (“When the comments of a sentencing court may reasonably be viewed as suggesting that the sentence was, at least in part, based on the defendant's decision to go to trial, resentencing before a different judge is appropriate…
Authorities Cited
- Wilson v. State, 845 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2003)
- Tomasz Walek v. State, 129 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)