WILLIAM HENRY THOMAS, III, 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.
In this Anders appeal, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed Thomas's conviction and sentence but identified a potential sentencing error regarding the imposition of a $100 sheriff's investigative cost that was not orally pronounced at sentencing. The affirmance was without prejudice to Thomas's right to seek post-conviction relief for the unpreserved sentencing error.
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence because the error was not preserved by objection or motion to correct sentencing errors. However, the imposition of the investigative cost without oral pronouncement at sentencing constitutes a potential error. The affirmance is without prejudice to appellant's right to seek post-conviction relief for unpreserved sentencing errors.
[1] A discretionary cost imposed pursuant to section 938.27, Florida Statutes, must be orally pronounced by the court at sentencing.
[2] A trial court errs in imposing a discretionary investigative cost without notice or hearing and without specifically identifying it at sentencing.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 trial court erred in imposing the $100 sheriffs investigative cost "without notice or hearing and without specifically identifying it at sentencing"”
Establishes that oral pronouncement and notice are required for discretionary investigative costs
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas was convicted and sentenced. At sentencing, the trial court assessed a $100 sheriff's investigative cost pursuant to section 938.27, Florida St…
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 Discretionary Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
■ This appeal is brought under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Upon review of the record, we find no preserved error warranting reversal. We affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence.
*223However, a review of the record reveals a possible sentencing error concerning the court’s assessment of $100 in sheriffs investigative costs imposed pursuant to section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2010), as the court did not orally pronounce the discretionary cost at the sentencing hearing. Mills v. State, 177 So.3d 984, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (holding that the trial court erred in imposing the $100 sheriffs investigative cost “without notice or hearing and without specifically identifying it at sentencing”); Lippwe v. State, 152 So.3d 782, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (ruling that investigative fees pursuant to section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes,, “must be requested on the record by the appropriate agency”); Kirkland v. State, 106 So.3d 4, 4-5 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that “the trial court should have orally pronounced the $100 investigative cost, as it is a discretionary cost and not a mandatory'cost”). Because appellant did not préserve the error either by objecting during imposition of the sentence or by filing a motion to correct sentencing errors, this Court must affirm. See Ramos v. State, 156 So.3d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). We do so without prejudice to appellant’s right to file an appropriate post-conviction motion'to correct any unpreserved sentencing errors. See id.-, see also Collando-Pena v. State, 141 So.3d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (affirming appellant’s judgment and unpreserved sentencing error “without prejudice to his right to seek timely collateral relief’).
AFFIRMED.
LEWIS and WINOKUR, JJ., Concur.
SWANSON, J„ Concurs In Result Only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.L.F. v. State, 228 So. 3d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
-
Chandler Richard Leombruno v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Leondray Kirkland v. State, 106 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Wilman Ramon Collando-Pena v. State, 141 So. 3d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Everly Scott Lippwe v. State, 152 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Ramos v. State, 156 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)