Sharpe v. State
| Decision Date | 09 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D12–1517.,1D12–1517. |
| Citation | 115 So.3d 1021 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Alvin SHARPE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Alvin SHARPE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D12–1517.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
May 22, 2013.
Rehearing Denied July 9, 2013.
Michael J. Titus, Assistant Conflict Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Region One, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Alvin Sharpe, pro se, Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
[115 So.3d 1022]
PER CURIAM.
Alvin Sharpe appeals his judgment and 20–year sentence for aggravated battery with a firearm. Appellate counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), representing that no good faith argument could be made that reversible error occurred below. Having reviewed the record, we affirm Appellant's conviction and prison sentence.
However, appellate counsel identified several errors with the imposition of costs and fines at sentencing, and scrivener's errors in Appellant's Criminal Punishment Code Scoresheet that require correction. Appellant preserved these errors in a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). Because this motion was not ruled on within sixty days, it is considered to have been denied. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B).
We first find the trial court erred by imposing in the written judgment and sentence a $1,050 fine pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes; a 5 percent surcharge in the amount of $52.50 pursuant to section 938.04, Florida Statutes; and a $20 court cost pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes. Because the trial court failed to orally pronounce the fine, the imposition of the fine, surcharge, and cost was error. See Pullam v. State, 55 So.3d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). On remand, the trial court may re-impose the fine, surcharge, and court cost after providing notice to Appellant and following the proper procedure. See Williams v. State, 82 So.3d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (reversing judgment for fines, costs, and surcharges “because the trial court failed to delineate the discretionary fine(s) when announcing at sentencing that it would impose $1,522.50 in costs and fines,” and stating the assessments may be re-imposed on remand after giving appellant notice and following proper procedure). If, however, the trial court elects not to re-impose the fine, surcharge, and court cost, it should enter a corrected Judgment for Fines, Costs, Fees, and Surcharges...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v. State, 1D12–5503.
... ... See, e.g., Colson v. State, 114 So.3d 415, 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ; Sharpe v. State, 115 So.3d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ; Youman v. State, 112 So.3d 693, 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse this $100.00 cost and remand for the trial court to advise Appellant of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of the indigent legal ... ...
-
Chestnut v. State, s. 1D13–1207
... ... Specifically, in Case No. 1D13–1207, we remand for the trial court to either strike the $100 indigent legal assistance lien or to give Chestnut an opportunity to contest the lien, see Sharpe v. State, 115 So.3d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), Colson v. State, 114 So.3d 415, 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), and Youman v. State, 112 So.3d 693, 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); and, in Case No. 1D13–1208, we remand for entry of a written probation revocation order, see Dunklin v. State, 135 So.3d 349, ... ...
-
Boyington v. State
... ... While statutorily-mandated costs may be imposed without notice (and thus, need not be individually announced at sentencing), discretionary costs or fines must be orally pronounced at sentencing in order to comport[125 So.3d 328]with due process requirements. Sharpe v. State, 115 So.3d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Smiley v. State, 704 So.2d 191, 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Here, the fines and costs were assessed as part of a lump sum, which was error. As such, appellate counsel's failure to file a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct the sentencing error ... ...
-
Bradshaw v. State, 1D14–0724.
... ... The trial court failed to inform the defendant, as required by the statute, of his right to a hearing to dispute the amount of the indigent legal assistance lien created by the imposition of the cost of defense. See 938.29(1)(a) and (5), Fla. Stat.; Sharpe v. State, 115 So.3d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ; Colson v. State, 114 So.3d 415, 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ; Youman v. State, 112 So.3d 693, 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ; DeSalvo v. State, 107 So.3d 1185, 118687 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).Accordingly, we reverse the $100 Appointed Counsel Attorney Fee. On ... ...