Webster v. State, 96-03940
| Decision Date | 28 January 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-03940,96-03940 |
| Citation | 705 So.2d 970 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D375 Roy WEBSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Clearwater, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Roy Webster appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts of aggravated assault. Webster raises eight issues on appeal, however only the two issues relating to his sentences have merit. With regard to the remaining issues, we affirm Webster's convictions without further discussion.
Webster was sentenced as a habitual felony offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1995), to ten years' imprisonment with a mandatory minimum of five years for each count, with the sentences to run concurrently. In addition, he was ordered to pay a fine under section 775.083, Florida Statutes (1995), of $10,000 ($5000 per count), and to pay court costs of $600 ($300 per count). Webster asserts the $10,000 fine is not statutorily authorized when assessed in addition to a habitual felony offender sentence. He further asserts the $600 in costs must be stricken because the court did not cite any statutory authority for imposing these costs in either its oral pronouncement or written sentence, and in any event, costs must be assessed per case not per count.
Fines imposed pursuant to section 775.083 are authorized when assessed "in addition to any punishment described in s. 775.082." § 775.083(1). However, there is no comparable authorization in either section 775.083 or section 775.084 that would allow a fine to be assessed in addition to punishment imposed under section 775.084, the habitual offender statute. In King v. State, 681 So.2d 1136 (Fla.1996), the supreme court stated:
Both imprisonment under section 775.082 and a fine under section 775.083 may be imposed for a single offense because section 775.083 specifically provides that "[a] person who has been convicted of an offense other than a capital felony may be sentenced to pay a fine in addition to any punishment described in s. 775.082." § 775.083(1), Fla. Stat. (1989); * * * * However, nothing in section 775.084 authorizes that sentencing be imposed under that statute in addition to the punishment described in section 775.082.
King, 681 So.2d at 1139-40. The court went on to find that a sentencing judge may impose either a habitual offender sentence or a guidelines sentence, but not both. See id. at 1140.
On that basis, the trial court had no statutory authority to sentence Webster to both a habitual offender sentence under section 775.084 and a fine under section 775.083. The legislature has not specifically authorized the imposition of a fine in addition to a habitual offender sentence in the same way that it has authorized a fine to be imposed in addition to a guidelines sentence. Without explicit statutory authority, imposing both a fine and a habitual offender sentence exceeds the maximum sentence authorized by statute, and therefore constitutes an illegal sentence. As such, the $10,000 fine imposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McNeil v. State
...v. State, 44 So.3d 653, 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“Generally, costs may be imposed per case and not per count.”); Webster v. State, 705 So.2d 970, 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“In addition, statutory costs must be assessed per case, not per count.”); Van Vorous v. State, 696 So.2d 1317, 1318 (Fla......
-
McNeil v. State
...per case, but do so without identifying a specific statute upon which that conclusion is based. For example, in Webster v. State , 705 So.2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), the district court struck costs imposed by the trial court because the trial court had failed to cite any statutory authority ......
-
Harper v. State, 2D04-2630.
...sentence exceeds the maximum allowed by statute. He is correct. See Floyd v. State, 739 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Webster v. State, 705 So.2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). However, because he will be resentenced according to the sentencing guidelines, his habitual offender designation will b......
-
Baker v. State
...in section 775.084. See King v. State, 681 So.2d 1136 (Fla.1996); Willits v. State, 884 So.2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Webster v. State, 705 So.2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In Floyd v. State, 739 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), this court appeared to extend the holding in Webster to apply to a f......