WILLIAM G. ANDERSON
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.
A trial court must provide notice and an opportunity to object before imposing a fine under section 775.083 and surcharge under section 938.04 of the Florida Statutes.
[1] A trial court must provide a defendant with notice and an opportunity to object before imposing a fine under section 775.083 and an accompanying surcharge under section 9…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam G. Anderson appealed his criminal conviction. The trial court imposed a fine and surcharge without giving Anderson notice or an opportunity to…
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 Direct Criminal Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D17-169 _____________________________
WILLIAM G. ANDERSON,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee. _____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Wakulla County. James O. Shelfer, Judge.
July 11, 2018
PER CURIAM.
In Appellant’s direct criminal appeal, his counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We agree there are no meritorious issues for appeal, and affirm the judgment and sentence. However, Appellant correctly argues that the trial court erred in failing to give him notice and an opportunity to object to the fine imposed pursuant to section 775.083 of the Florida Statutes, and the accompanying surcharge assessed pursuant to section 938.04. Carmichael v. State, 192 So. 3d 640, 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). This issue was preserved for appeal by the denial of Appellant’s motion to correct sentencing error. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2). We therefore strike this fine and surcharge. The lower tribunal may, but is not required to, reimpose them on remand after following the proper procedure.
2
See Nix v. State, 84 So. 3d 424, 426 & n.2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (noting it may be an imprudent use of judicial resources to conduct further proceedings to impose a fine on a defendant who is serving a lengthy prison sentence). WOLF, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Candice K. Brower, Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Region One, Gainesville, and Michael J. Titus, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Region One, Tallahassee, for Appellant, and William G. Anderson, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lockhart v. State, 260 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Marshall v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
-
Akeen Kadoni Paul v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- NIX v. State, 84 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Darrin Lee Carmichael v. State, 192 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
- Medina v. State, 84 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)