Giles v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Giles v. State

103 So. 3d 1058, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 337, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 121

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 10, 2013

DocketNo. 1D11-4311

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 103 So. 3d 1058 (Giles 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

Giles v. State, 103 So. 3d 1058, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 337, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 121 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mr. Michael Giles appeals his judgment and sentence for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon in connection with his actions during the early morning hours of February 6, 2010. We affirm his conviction without comment, but we find the state’s concession of error to be proper with respect to the fines, surcharges, and costs imposed at sentencing.

“The fine authorized by section 775.083(1) is discretionary and, thus, it was error for the trial court to impose the $1,050 fine under this statute without specifically pronouncing the fine at the sentencing hearing.” Nix v. State, 84 So.3d 424, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Additionally, “[b]ecause this fine was erroneously imposed, the surcharge under section 938.04, which is based on the amount of fine, must also be reversed.” Id. Similarly, under the relevant version of the statute, because the trial court erred in imposing the fine, the $20 court cost imposed pursuant to section 938.06 must also be stricken. See Sanders v. State, 101 So.3d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Mallory v. State, 70 So.3d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Pullam v. State, 55 So.3d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

On remand, the trial court may reimpose the assessments after providing notice to Appellant and following the proper procedure. Nix, 84 So.3d at 426.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Mr. Michael Giles appeals his judgment and sentence for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon in connection with his actions during the early morning hours of February 6, 2010. We affirm his conviction without comment, but we find the state’s concession of error to be proper with respect to the fines, surcharges, and costs imposed at sentencing.

“The fine authorized by section 775.083(1) is discretionary and, thus, it was error for the trial court to impose the $1,050 fine under this statute without specifically pronouncing the fine at the sentencing hearing.” Nix v. State, 84 So.3d 424, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Additionally, “[b]ecause this fine was erroneously imposed, the surcharge under section 938.04, which is based on the amount of fine, must also be reversed.” Id. Similarly, under the relevant version of the statute, because the trial court erred in imposing the fine, the $20 court cost imposed pursuant to section 938.06 must also be stricken. See Sanders v. State, 101 So.3d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Mallory v. State, 70 So.3d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Pullam v. State, 55 So.3d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

On remand, the trial court may reimpose the assessments after providing notice to Appellant and following the proper procedure. Nix, 84 So.3d at 426.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 So. 3d 1058, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 337, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giles-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack