Agard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Agard v. State

942 So. 2d 923, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17966, 2006 WL 3040751

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 27, 2006

DocketNo. 2D05-3813

StatusPublished

This text of 942 So. 2d 923 (Agard v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Agard v. State, 942 So. 2d 923, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17966, 2006 WL 3040751 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

LaROSE, Judge.

In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Amer Khan Agard challenges the imposition of a $12 processing fee imposed as a condition of probation. Mr. Agard preserved this issue by filing a motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). We affirm in part and reverse in part.

In his rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, Mr. Agard asked the trial court to strike condition 59 of his probation order because the probation processing fee was neither orally pronounced by the trial court nor supported by statutory authority. Apparently, the trial court orally granted Mr. Agard’s motion and directed the Department of Corrections to prepare a corrected order; the trial court never entered a written order.

We reverse the imposition of the processing fee. See Williams v. State, 916 So.2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reversing imposition of $1 cost because not orally pronounced and imposed without [924]*924any written citation to authorizing statute); Jackson v. State, 685 So.2d 1386, 1387 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (vacating portions of probation order, including that which imposed $50 probation processing fee, and directing that the fee be stricken for lack of statutory authorization); see also Powell v. State, 681 So.2d 722, 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that trial court has no authority to impose such a fee).

Judgments and sentences affirmed; imposition of probation processing fee reversed and cause remanded with directions to the trial court to strike the fee and to enter a corrected probation order. See Rosales v. State, 818 So.2d 684, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

SILBERMAN and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LaROSE, Judge.

In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Amer Khan Agard challenges the imposition of a $12 processing fee imposed as a condition of probation. Mr. Agard preserved this issue by filing a motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). We affirm in part and reverse in part.

In his rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, Mr. Agard asked the trial court to strike condition 59 of his probation order because the probation processing fee was neither orally pronounced by the trial court nor supported by statutory authority. Apparently, the trial court orally granted Mr. Agard’s motion and directed the Department of Corrections to prepare a corrected order; the trial court never entered a written order.

We reverse the imposition of the processing fee. See Williams v. State, 916 So.2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reversing imposition of $1 cost because not orally pronounced and imposed without [924]*924any written citation to authorizing statute); Jackson v. State, 685 So.2d 1386, 1387 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (vacating portions of probation order, including that which imposed $50 probation processing fee, and directing that the fee be stricken for lack of statutory authorization); see also Powell v. State, 681 So.2d 722, 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that trial court has no authority to impose such a fee).

Judgments and sentences affirmed; imposition of probation processing fee reversed and cause remanded with directions to the trial court to strike the fee and to enter a corrected probation order. See Rosales v. State, 818 So.2d 684, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

SILBERMAN and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

942 So. 2d 923, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17966, 2006 WL 3040751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/agard-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack