ALAN OSTERHOUDT, JR., 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.
Alan Osterhoudt appeals his manslaughter conviction and sentence. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction and denial of the mistrial motion, but remanded for correction of his sentencing scoresheet, which incorrectly indicated he entered a plea rather than being convicted by jury trial.
The trial court did not err in denying the motion for mistrial. The defendant waived appellate review of his fees, costs, and fines claims by raising only procedural rather than substantive objections in his rule 3.800 motion. The sentencing scoresheet must be corrected to reflect jury conviction rather than a plea.
[1] A defendant waives appellate review of alleged improper assessments of fees, costs, and fines when raising only procedural, and not substantive, claims in a rule 3.800 mo…
[2] A defendant's due process rights regarding unpronounced special probation conditions are adequately protected by rule 3.800.
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“a defendant waives his right to raise issues on direct appeal relating to a trial court's imposition of unpronounced conditions of probation if the defendant only raises "procedural and not substantive challenges" to those discretionary assessments in a rule 3.800 motion”
Establishes the waiver rule for fees and costs challenged only procedurally in rule 3.800 motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOsterhoudt was convicted by jury of manslaughter. The trial court imposed certain fees, costs, and fines after sentencing. In his post-sentencing rule…
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 Waiver Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Alan Osterhoudt (the defendant) appeals his judgment and sentence, which were entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of committing the crime of manslaughter. The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial is without merit. However, we write to address the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in imposing certain fees, costs, and fines.
Post-sentencing, the defendant filed a motion for sentencing relief pursuant to rule 3.800 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Among other things, the motion alleged error in the imposition of certain fees, costs, and fines. The motion was denied. The defendant, now contends that the trial court reversibly erred in imposing certain fees, discretionary fines, and costs. We conclude that these claims were not properly preserved for appellate review.
Our court has held that a defendant waives his right to raise issues on direct appeal relating to a trial court’s imposition of unpronounced conditions of probation if the defendant only raises “procedural and not • substantive challenges” to those discretionary assessments in a rule 3.800 motion. See Velez-Pizzini v. State, 58 So.3d 278, 279 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“Because the appellant did not raise a substantive objection to [an] unpronounced, but otherwise unobjectionable special condition, it need not be stricken.”); Grubb v. State, 922 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (en banc) ■ (holding that' the defendant’s due process rights regarding unpronounced special probation conditions were adequately protected by rule 3.800 and, thus, special conditions'that were not orally pronounced during sentencing hearing, but were otherwise proper, were not required to 'be stricken from written probation order where defendant had notice of conditions in time to file a'motion to correct sentence). The reasoning of these cases is equally applicable to alleged improper assessments imposed as fees, costs, and fines.' As such, appellate review of the defendant’s claims of error regarding his discretionary fees, costs, and fines were waived when he raised only procedural, and not substantive, claims in his 3.800 motion.
The defendant also argues that this matter must be remanded to the trial court with instructions that his sentencing score-sheet be corrected since the scoresheet states that he entered a plea when, in fact, he was found guilty by a jury after a trial. The State agrees. As such, remand is appropriate in order to correct the defendant’s'scoresheet. See generally Perez v. State, 840 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 5th DGA 2003) (remanding for correction of the score-sheet that listed the wrong offense level).
AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED with instructions.
ORFINGER, J. and HIGBEE, H.L., Associate Judge, concur. > -
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Osterhoudt v. State, 214 So. 3d 550 (Fla. 2017)…PER CURIAM. Alan Osterhoudt, Jr., seeks review of the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Osterhoudt v. State, 182 So. 3d 16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts, with decisions of the Second District Court of Ap [*551] peal in Williams v. State, 198 So. 3d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), and the First District Court of Appeal in Nix v. Stat…
-
Coicou v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) to correct sentencing error, and the trial court granted his motion. However, the record does not contain a corrected scoresheet. We thus remand for the State to file a corrected scoresheet. See Osterhoudt v. State, 182 So. 3d 16, 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (remanding with instructions to correct scoresheet that incorrectly indicates that the defendant entered a plea "when, in fact, he was found guilty by a jury after trial"). Affirmed; remanded with instructions. NORTHCUTT and…
Authorities Cited
- Grubb v. State, 922 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Perez v. State, 840 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Velez-Pizzini v. State, 58 So. 3d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)