CHRISTOPHER L. KEE
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.
When a trial court imposes prosecution costs above the statutory minimum without making appropriate factual findings or orally announcing the higher amount at sentencing, the costs must be reduced to the mandatory minimum amount.
[1] A trial court's imposition of prosecution costs above the statutory minimum is unauthorized when no evidence supports the higher amount and the trial court does not orall…
[2] Oral pronouncement of prosecution costs at sentencing controls over the written sentence.
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“When the trial court fails to make the appropriate factual findings regarding prosecution costs above the statutory minimum or orally announce a higher amount at sentencing, prosecution costs will be reduced to the mandatory minimum amount.”
The court's statement of the legal standard governing prosecution cost assessments
Kee appealed from a criminal judgment and sentence following a plea agreement that resolved three felony cases. The trial court imposed $200 in prosec…
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 Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
CHRISTOPHER L. KEE,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 4D2022-0416
[March 6, 2024]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Darren Steele, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 43-2017-CF-000212, 43-2018-CF-001408, and 43-2020-CF-001070.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Christine C. Geraghty and Erika Elizabeth Follmer, Assistant Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. CONNER, J.
The defendant appeals from a criminal judgment and sentence following a plea agreement that resolved three felony cases. The defendant raises six issues on appeal. We affirm the trial court’s rulings on five of the issues without discussion. The defendant’s sixth issue argues the trial court erred in imposing unauthorized prosecution costs in the three cases. The issue was preserved by a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion filed while this appeal was pending. The motion was deemed denied when the trial court did not rule on the motion within sixty days after it was filed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B).
The state concedes the prosecution costs assessment of $200 should be reduced to the statutory minimum of $100 because no evidence was presented to support the higher amount and the trial court did not orally
2
pronounce the higher amount at sentencing. See § 938.27(8), Fla. Stat. (2022).1
When the trial court fails to make the appropriate factual findings regarding prosecution costs above the statutory minimum or orally announce a higher amount at sentencing, prosecution costs will be reduced to the mandatory minimum amount. Desrosiers v. State, 286 So. 3d 297, 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); see also Briggs v. State, 936 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (finding that the oral pronouncement controls over the written sentence).
As the state did not provide the required justification for higher costs and the trial court did not orally pronounce the $200 amount, the order imposing $200 in prosecution costs is reversed for each case, and we remand the cases for the trial court to ministerially correct the error and reduce the assessment for prosecution costs to $100.2
Affirm in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peterson v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- la Vallata v. State, 936 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)