Easterly v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Easterly v. State

445 So. 2d 1110, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12032

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 29, 1984

DocketNo. 82-871

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 445 So. 2d 1110 (Easterly 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

Easterly v. State, 445 So. 2d 1110, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12032 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHEB, Judge.

Randy Beven Easterly was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in cannabis and attempted trafficking in cannabis. He was sentenced to two consecutive fifteen-year terms of imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of $20,000. Additionally, the court assessed the following costs against him: court costs of $1,000; $10 pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1981) (Crimes Compensation Trust Fund); $2 pursuant to section 943.25(4) (Law Enforcement Training and Correctional Officer Training Trust Fund); and $20 pursuant to section 775.-0835 (optional fine for Crimes Compensation Trust Fund). Five days after entry of judgment and sentence, he filed an affidavit of indigency and was subsequently declared insolvent for the purpose of appeal, and counsel was appointed to represent him. Easterly was represented by private counsel during trial.

On appeal Easterly challenges the fines and costs imposed on the ground that he was insolvent.

We first note that Easterly had not been found insolvent at the time of sentencing. At that time he was represented by private counsel and was not declared insolvent until some time later. Although Easterly relies on Ortiz v. State, 420 So.2d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), in support of his argument, we note that Ortiz applies only to the assessment of costs against a defendant who is insolvent at the time of sentencing. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court’s assessment of fines and costs against Easterly since, at that time, he was not found to be insolvent.

However, we do find that the fine assessed pursuant to section 775.0835, Florida Statutes (1981), was improper, since Easterly was convicted of felonies which did not result in the injury or death of another person. Moore v. State, 422 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).

Accordingly, we strike the $20 fine imposed pursuant to section 775.0835. We have examined all other points raised by Easterly and find them to be without merit. Therefore, in all other respects, we affirm his judgment and sentences.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.

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

SCHEB, Judge.

Randy Beven Easterly was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in cannabis and attempted trafficking in cannabis. He was sentenced to two consecutive fifteen-year terms of imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of $20,000. Additionally, the court assessed the following costs against him: court costs of $1,000; $10 pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1981) (Crimes Compensation Trust Fund); $2 pursuant to section 943.25(4) (Law Enforcement Training and Correctional Officer Training Trust Fund); and $20 pursuant to section 775.-0835 (optional fine for Crimes Compensation Trust Fund). Five days after entry of judgment and sentence, he filed an affidavit of indigency and was subsequently declared insolvent for the purpose of appeal, and counsel was appointed to represent him. Easterly was represented by private counsel during trial.

On appeal Easterly challenges the fines and costs imposed on the ground that he was insolvent.

We first note that Easterly had not been found insolvent at the time of sentencing. At that time he was represented by private counsel and was not declared insolvent until some time later. Although Easterly relies on Ortiz v. State, 420 So.2d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), in support of his argument, we note that Ortiz applies only to the assessment of costs against a defendant who is insolvent at the time of sentencing. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court’s assessment of fines and costs against Easterly since, at that time, he was not found to be insolvent.

However, we do find that the fine assessed pursuant to section 775.0835, Florida Statutes (1981), was improper, since Easterly was convicted of felonies which did not result in the injury or death of another person. Moore v. State, 422 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).

Accordingly, we strike the $20 fine imposed pursuant to section 775.0835. We have examined all other points raised by Easterly and find them to be without merit. Therefore, in all other respects, we affirm his judgment and sentences.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

445 So. 2d 1110, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/easterly-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack