CHRISTAL E. SCOFIELD
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.
Christal E. Scofield appealed her sentencing, raising three issues: improper consideration of financial status, entry of a duplicative judgment after probation revocation, and imposition of an unsupported $200 prosecution fee. The court affirmed the financial status argument but reversed on the duplicative judgment and excessive fee issues.
The court affirmed the circuit court's consideration of financial status at sentencing but reversed the entry of the duplicative judgment, which violated Florida Statutes section 948.06(2)(b). The court also reversed the $200 prosecution fee, holding that without sufficient findings of additional costs incurred, only the statutory minimum of $100 may be imposed.
[1] A trial court may not enter a duplicative judgment of guilty when revoking probation if the defendant has previously been adjudged guilty of the same offense, as prohibit…
[2] A prosecution fee under Florida Statute § 938.27(8) may exceed the statutory minimum of $100 only upon the state attorney's demonstration of higher costs incurred and the…
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“If probation or community control is revoked, the court shall adjudge the probationer or offender guilty of the offense charged and proven or admitted, unless he or she has previously been adjudged guilty”
Florida Statutes § 948.06(2)(b), establishing the prohibition on duplicative judgments
Scofield was convicted of a felony offense and placed on probation. Her probation was subsequently revoked, and the circuit court entered a duplicativ…
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 Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
KUNTZ, J. Christal E. Scofield raises three issues on appeal. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
First, Scofield alleges the circuit court improperly considered her financial status at sentencing. On this issue, our review of the record indicates otherwise, and we affirm without further discussion.
Second, Scofield argues the circuit court erroneously entered a duplicative judgment for the same offense after revoking her probation. Scofield relies on section 948.06(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2020):
(b) If probation or community control is revoked, the court shall adjudge the probationer or offender guilty of the offense charged and proven or admitted, unless he or she has previously been adjudged guilty, and impose any sentence which it might have originally imposed before placing the probationer on probation or the offender into community control. § 948.06(2)(b) (emphasis added). The State properly concedes error on this issue. When the court enters a duplicative judgment, the duplicative judgment must be vacated. See Byra v. State, 268 So. 3d 207, 207-08 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). So we reverse in part and remand with instructions to vacate the duplicative judgment. Third, Scofield contends the circuit court improperly imposed a $200 fee for the cost of prosecution when the evidence only supported a $100 fee. Again, the State concedes error. By law, “[c]osts for the state attorney must be set in all cases at . . . no less than $100 per case when a felony offense is charged,” but “[t]he court may set a higher amount upon a showing of sufficient proof of higher costs incurred.” § 938.27(8), Fla. Stat. (2020). To set a higher amount, “the state attorney must demonstrate the amount spent on prosecuting the defendant and the trial court must consider the defendant’s financial resources.” Guadagno v. State, 291 So. 3d 962, 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (quoting Graham v. State, 640 So. 2d 1166, 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)).
Here, the circuit court imposed the $200 fee without record evidence to support it. See, e.g., Bevans v. State, 291 So. 3d 591, 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). On remand, the circuit court must impose a $100 fee unless it makes sufficient findings to support the additional costs. See, e.g., Guadagno, 291 So. 3d at 963.
In conclusion, we affirm in part and reverse in part. On remand, the circuit court must vacate the duplicative judgment and impose a $100 fee unless sufficient findings are made to support additional costs.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part. GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bartolone v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…court has consistently, both pre- and post-Richards, chosen to remand unsupported costs assessments and provide the State with another opportunity to show “sufficient proof of higher [prosecution] costs incurred.” See, e.g., Scofield v. State, 317 So. 3d 130, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Guadagno v. State, 291 So. 3d 962, 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Bevans v. State, 291 So. 3d 591, 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Desrosiers, 286 So. 3d at 300. Consistent with this precedent, “[w]e therefore reverse the prosecutio…
-
Jenkins v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…tion 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2020), provides that in all criminal cases “convicted persons are liable for payment of the costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies . . . if 2 See Scofield v. State, 317 So. 3d 130, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Bevans v. State, 291 So. 3d 591, 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Desrosiers v. State, 286 So. 3d 297, 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). 3 We certified questions of great public importance in Bartolone, including: “Is the State entitled to…
Authorities Cited
- Bevans v. State, 291 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
- Byra v. State, 268 So. 3d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)