JIMMY LEROY OWENS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that a defendant cannot be imprisoned beyond the statutory maximum for an offense due to inability to pay costs.
Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor and was sentenced to the maximum penalty plus additiona…
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 Payment Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final judgment, pursuant to a nolo contendere plea to the offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, petit larceny, Appellant’s nolo contendere plea was accepted and appellant was sentenced to five years imprisonment, the maximum *472penalty provided by law, and was ordered to pay costs of $101.00 or 91 days in the county jail.
Appellant now contends that the trial court erred in accepting his nolo con-tendere plea without making a complete inquiry as to whether he knowingly and intelligently waived all the constitutional rights involved. We have carefully examined the transcript herein and find this point to be substantially without merit. Dill v. State, 248 So.2d 502 (Fla.App. 1st, 1971).
Appellant next contends that the sentence of five years plus 91 days in default of payment of costs was in excess of the maximum imprisonment allowed by law inasmuch as appellant was adjudged insolvent. With this contention, we agree.
As stated in Williams v. Illinois, 399 U. S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970):
“ * * * a State may not constitutionally imprison beyond the maximum duration fixed by statute a defendant who is financially unable to pay a fine.”
and
“ * * * The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the statutory ceiling placed on imprisonment for any substantive offense be the same for all defendants irrespective of their economic status.”
Also see Dunn v. State, 247 So.2d 26 (Fla.App. 2nd, 1971).
For the reasons hereinabove set out, that portion of the sentence which provides for 91 days in the county jail in default of the payment of $101.00 in costs is vacated.
The judgment and sentence as modified herein are affirmed.
SPECTOR, C. J., and MILLS, E. R., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holden v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 286 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…of the constitutional rights of a defendant unless it is made to appear from the record that the defendant is unable because of indigency to pay the prescribed fine. City of Orlando v. Cameron, Fla.1972, 264 So. 2d 421; Owens v. State, Fla.App.1971, 253 So. 2d 471. See also Dunn v. State, Fla.App.1971, 247 So. 2d 26. The record in the case sub judice is silent as to the issue of indigency or for that matter any assertion or contention regarding a sentence alternative to the payment of a fine. .Petitioner has…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1970)
- Dunn v. State, 247 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Napoli v. State, 248 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)