ROSA DALIA GUZMAN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 4th DCA | 2024-11-20
No. 4D2023-0791
2024 FL 13224 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2024)

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.


Holding

A sentencing court cannot impose a community service administrative fee as a special condition of probation unless it is orally pronounced at sentencing and authorized by statute or rule.


Headnotes

[1] A sentencing court must orally pronounce at sentencing any special condition of probation, and such condition must be specifically authorized by statute or rule to be val…

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 intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Rosa Dalia Guzman was sentenced in Indian River County and moved to correct a sentencing error regarding an imposed $25 community service administrati…

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.


Opinion of the Court

Appeal from the County Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Robyn E. Stone, Judge; L.T. Case No. 312022MM002046A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Robert Porter, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the denial of her motion to correct a sentencing error. She claims that the court erred in imposing a twenty-five dollar community service administrative fee as a special condition of probation. Appellant argues, and the State concedes, that the fee must be stricken because it was not orally pronounced at sentencing, and it is not specifically authorized by statute or rule. We agree. See Metellus v. State, 310 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). We therefore reverse and remand the denial of the motion to correct the sentencing error and direct that the twenty-five dollar fee be stricken from the conditions of probation.

Reversed. WARNER, GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw