THOR HAROLD BAHRMAN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Judgments and sentences in probation violation and criminal cases are affirmed, but remanded to eliminate duplicative costs, correct the public defender application fee from $100 to $50, and amend the revocation order to include both case numbers.
[1] Costs previously assessed at original sentencing may not be reassessed in a subsequent probation violation proceeding.
[2] A public defender application fee is limited to $50 per application under Florida Statute § 27.52(1)(b), regardless of the number of cases involved in a single proceeding…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“An applicant shall pay a $50 application fee to the clerk for each application for court-appointed counsel filed.”
Citation to § 27.52(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2024) regarding the statutory limit on public defender application fees
Appellant Bahrman was convicted or admitted to violating probation in three separate cases. The trial court imposed sentences and assessed costs in ea…
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 Order Of Revocation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________ Case No. 5D2025-0423 LT Case Nos. 2025-000044-CFMA 2024-000183-CFMA 2023-002046-CFMA _____________________________ THOR HAROLD BAHRMAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County.
R. Lee Smith, Judge.
Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Judson Searcy, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. July 3, 2025
PER CURIAM.
2 In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm the judgments and sentences imposed upon Appellant by the trial court in two cases below following Appellant’s admission to violating his probation (“VOP”) in each case. We also affirm the judgment and sentence imposed in a third case after Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to the charged offenses in that case. However, we remand for the correction of errors in the final judgments assessing costs in the two VOP cases and to correct the singular order of revocation of probation entered to include both lower court case numbers.
The cost judgment entered in each VOP case reassessed the sums of $100 for the cost of prosecution, $100 for the cost of indigency defense, a $50 public defender’s application fee, and $100 investigative costs that had been imposed when Appellant was first sentenced. We direct the trial court to amend the VOP cost judgment in each case to delete these duplicative costs. See Anderson v. State, 380 So. 3d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024) (citing Chivese v. State, 295 So. 3d 324, 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)).
Second, as to the costs specifically assessed in the VOP cases, the trial court ordered Appellant to pay the sum of $100 in each case for the public defender’s application fee. On remand, the trial court is directed to correct these cost judgments to instead show the sum of $50 being assessed in each case for this application fee. See § 27.52(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“An applicant shall pay a $50 application fee to the clerk for each application for court-appointed counsel filed.”).
Third, the singular order of revocation of probation entered inadvertently failed to include both VOP case numbers, which we direct be corrected on remand.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions to the trial court to issue amended cost judgments and a corrected order of revocation of probation consistent with this opinion.
JAY, C.J., and LAMBERT and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
3 _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Chivese v. State, 295 So. 3d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
- Davis v. State, 380 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)