JOSEPH YOUNGBLOOD
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.
In this Anders appeal, the court affirmed Joseph Youngblood's judgments and sentences across four cases but reversed and remanded on specific issues regarding FDLE Operating Trust Fund costs and scrivener's errors in the written judgments and sentencings.
The court affirmed Youngblood's judgments and sentences but reversed the imposition of FDLE Operating Trust Fund costs in all four cases because the trial court failed to orally pronounce these costs at sentencing. The court remanded for correction of multiple scrivener's errors in the written judgments, sentencing documents, and scoresheets to conform with the trial court's oral pronouncements.
[1] A cost imposed pursuant to section 938.055, Florida Statutes (FDLE Operating Trust Fund) is not valid unless orally pronounced by the trial court at sentencing.
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 intelligenceJoseph Youngblood was convicted and sentenced in four related criminal cases (2022-CF-000332 through 2022-CF-000335). The trial court imposed FDLE Ope…
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 Sentencing Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
MACIVER, J.
In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm Joseph Youngblood’s judgment and sentences in each of L.T. Case Nos. 2022-CF-000332, 2022-CF-000333, 2022-CF-000334, and 2022-CF-000335.
However, we reverse and remand: the imposition of the $400.00 ($100.00 x 4) cost pursuant to section 938.055, Florida Statutes (FDLE Operating Trust Fund) in L.T. Case No. 2022-CF-000332; the imposition of the $200.00 ($100.00 x 2) cost pursuant to section 938.055, Florida Statutes (FDLE Operating Trust Fund) in L.T. Case No. 2022-CF-000333; the imposition of the $200.00 ($100.00 x 2) cost pursuant to section 938.055, Florida Statutes (FDLE Operating Trust Fund) in L.T. Case 2022-CF-000334; and the imposition of the $200.00 ($100.00 x 2) cost pursuant to section 938.055, Florida Statutes (FDLE Operating Trust Fund) in L.T. Case No. 2022-CF-000335. The trial court did not orally pronounce this cost at sentencing. If applicable and procedurally justified, the trial court may reimpose the cost on remand. Jackson v. State, 313 So. 3d 221, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021).
Additionally, we remand for correction of scrivener’s errors. We remand for correction of the written judgment in L.T. Case No. 2022-CF-000333 to reflect—consistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement—that Defendant shall be required to submit DNA samples as required by law. We remand for correction of the written sentence in L.T. Case No. 2022-CF-000333 to reflect— consistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement—that the composite term of all sentences imposed for the counts specified in the order shall run concurrent with the specific sentences in L.T. Case No. 2022-CF-000332. We remand for correction of the scoresheet (filed in each of the four cases) to reflect—consistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement—that Defendant received a time-served sentence for Count 3 in each of L.T. Case Nos. 2022-CF-000334 and 2022-CF-000335. While the scoresheet correctly provides that Defendant received a time-served sentence for Count 3 in each of L.T. Case Nos. 2022-CF-000334 and 2022-CF-000335, it incorrectly, additionally provides that he received a 60-month sentence for Count 3 in each of L.T. Case Nos. 2022-CF-000334 and 2022-CF-000335.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with instructions.
EDWARDS, C.J., concurs. KILBANE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Case No. 5D2023-3067 Lt. Case Nos. 2022-CF-000332 2022-CF-000333 2022-CF-000334 2022-CF-000335 KILBANE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I fully concur with the majority’s decision to affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentences and to remand for correction of costs. I otherwise dissent. See Dubuc v. State, 345 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (Eisnaugle, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Dubuc v. State, 345 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)