Chapman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chapman v. State

651 So. 2d 223, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1960, 1995 WL 80029

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 1, 1995

DocketNo. 94-0465

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 651 So. 2d 223 (Chapman 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

Chapman v. State, 651 So. 2d 223, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1960, 1995 WL 80029 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s first appeal resulted in a retrial. Chapman v. State, 593 So.2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). On his second appeal, his convictions following retrial were affirmed, but his sentence was reversed. Chapman v. State, 625 So.2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

In this, appellant’s third appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in assessing the following costs as special conditions of probation: $200 for court costs per section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1989); $200 for public defender fees; $200 for costs of prosecution per section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1989); $50 for the crimes compensation fund pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1989); and $5 in contributions to criminal justice funds per section 943.25, Florida Statutes (1989). The total amount of fees and costs is $655.

We affirm in all respects except for two matters which require remand for correction of appellant’s written judgment and order of probation. First, because appellant committed his crimes prior to the effective date of the revised section 960.20, October 1, 1992, he can only be charged $20, rather than the $50 assessed by the trial court in the instant case. Bartlett v. State, 638 So.2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

Second, although the trial court orally assessed costs against appellant, it did not specifically announce that they would be special conditions of probation.¹ On remand, the judgment is to be corrected to reflect these costs are to be assessed against appellant, but not as special conditions of probation.

HERSEY, GLICKSTEIN and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s first appeal resulted in a retrial. Chapman v. State, 593 So.2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). On his second appeal, his convictions following retrial were affirmed, but his sentence was reversed. Chapman v. State, 625 So.2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

In this, appellant’s third appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in assessing the following costs as special conditions of probation: $200 for court costs per section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1989); $200 for public defender fees; $200 for costs of prosecution per section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1989); $50 for the crimes compensation fund pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1989); and $5 in contributions to criminal justice funds per section 943.25, Florida Statutes (1989). The total amount of fees and costs is $655.

We affirm in all respects except for two matters which require remand for correction of appellant’s written judgment and order of probation. First, because appellant committed his crimes prior to the effective date of the revised section 960.20, October 1, 1992, he can only be charged $20, rather than the $50 assessed by the trial court in the instant case. Bartlett v. State, 638 So.2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

Second, although the trial court orally assessed costs against appellant, it did not specifically announce that they would be special conditions of probation.¹ On remand, the judgment is to be corrected to reflect these costs are to be assessed against appellant, but not as special conditions of probation.

HERSEY, GLICKSTEIN and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

651 So. 2d 223, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1960, 1995 WL 80029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack