Caton v. State, 2D02-2612.
| Decision Date | 19 December 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D02-2612.,2D02-2612. |
| Citation | 862 So.2d 901 |
| Parties | Adam Lawrence CATON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Chandra Waite Dasrat, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Adam Lawrence Caton appeals from his judgment and sentence for burglary and grand theft following the revocation of his probation. Caton alleges that the trial court erred in imposing certain conditions of probation. We agree and reverse.
As a condition of Caton's probation, the court ordered Caton to pay a $150 Court Facilities Fee (condition 22), and $1 per month to First Step, Inc. (condition 25). After filing a notice of appeal in this court, Caton filed a motion to correct a sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), arguing that these fees should be stricken because the trial court failed to conduct an inquiry pursuant to section 939.18(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), regarding his ability to pay the Court Facilities Fee, and failed to cite the statutory authority for the $1 per month fee to First Step, Inc.
After the sixty-day time period provided in rule 3.800(b)(2) had expired, the trial court entered an order in which it found that Caton did not have the ability to pay the $150 fee and imposed this fee as a lien. The trial court found that Caton had the ability to pay the $1 per month fee and upheld the imposition of this cost. We agree with Caton that the trial court's order was a nullity because it was entered after the expiration of the sixty-day time period provided for in rule 3.800(b)(2). See Jackson v. State, 793 So.2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (); McGuire v. State, 779 So.2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ().
Accordingly, we strike the $150 discretionary Court Facilities Fee in condition 22 because of the trial court's failure to conduct the statutorily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waller v. State, 2D03-4029.
...Statutes (2002), without conducting an inquiry regarding Mr. Waller's ability to pay. See § 939.18(1)(b); see also Caton v. State, 862 So.2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Mr. Waller preserved this issue by raising it in a motion to correct sentencing error filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Crimin......
-
Jackson v. State
...regarding any objection that may be raised concerning the condition satisfies procedural due process requirements); Caton v. State, 862 So.2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (striking condition requiring payment of $1.00 to First Step, Inc., because it was not orally pronounced at sentencing, and au......
-
Ayoub v. State
...court to reconsider imposition of the cost if it makes the necessary findings required by section 939.18(1)(b). See Caton v. State, 862 So.2d 901, 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Patterson v. State, 796 So.2d 572, 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Ayoub further challenges a $3 cost imposed pursuant to Pasco ......
-
Bell v. State, 2D04-985.
...939.18, Fla. Stat. (2001). On remand, the trial court may impose this cost after compliance with section 939.18. See Caton v. State, 862 So.2d 901, 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Vidal v. State, 820 So.2d 408, 408-409 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111, 114 (Fla. 2d DCA Sentence vac......