Drayton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Drayton v. State

89 So. 3d 287, 2012 WL 2159224, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8211

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 23, 2012

DocketNo. 1D11-1416

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 89 So. 3d 287 (Drayton 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

Drayton v. State, 89 So. 3d 287, 2012 WL 2159224, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8211 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences for attempted second-degree murder and armed robbery with a firearm. However, we reverse the Judgment for Fines, Costs, Fees and Surcharges because the trial court failed to delineate the discretionary fine(s) when announcing at sentencing that it would impose “$2,625 in court costs and fines.” Discretionary fines must be orally pronounced at sentencing. See Pullam v. State, 55 So.3d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Smiley v. State, 704 So.2d 191, 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). On remand, the trial court may reimpose the assessments after giving Appellant notice and following the proper procedure. See Oliver v. State, 75 So.3d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). We further instruct the court on remand to correct scrivener’s errors in the Criminal Punishment Code score sheet and the Order of Probation reflecting that Appellant pled nolo contendere; the documents should reflect he was found guilty by jury verdict. See State v. Anderson, 905 So.2d 111, 118 (Fla.2005); Herrin v. [288]*288State, 51 So.3d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED part; REMANDED.

PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences for attempted second-degree murder and armed robbery with a firearm. However, we reverse the Judgment for Fines, Costs, Fees and Surcharges because the trial court failed to delineate the discretionary fine(s) when announcing at sentencing that it would impose “$2,625 in court costs and fines.” Discretionary fines must be orally pronounced at sentencing. See Pullam v. State, 55 So.3d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Smiley v. State, 704 So.2d 191, 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). On remand, the trial court may reimpose the assessments after giving Appellant notice and following the proper procedure. See Oliver v. State, 75 So.3d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). We further instruct the court on remand to correct scrivener’s errors in the Criminal Punishment Code score sheet and the Order of Probation reflecting that Appellant pled nolo contendere; the documents should reflect he was found guilty by jury verdict. See State v. Anderson, 905 So.2d 111, 118 (Fla.2005); Herrin v. [288]*288State, 51 So.3d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED part; REMANDED.

PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 3d 287, 2012 WL 2159224, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drayton-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack