Mallory v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mallory v. State

70 So. 3d 738, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15031, 2011 WL 4398535

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 22, 2011

Docket1D10-3612

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 70 So. 3d 738 (Mallory 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

Mallory v. State, 70 So. 3d 738, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15031, 2011 WL 4398535 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

WOLF, J.

Appellant appeals his judgment and sentence for attempted second-degree murder with a firearm, inflicting death or great bodily harm. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and In re Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d 149 (Fla.1991).

We find no error in appellant’s judgment and sentence. However, we find the trial court erred in imposing, in the written judgment and sentence; a $2,100 fine pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes (2009); a 5% surcharge in the amount of $105 pursuant to section 938.04, Florida Statutes (2009); and a $20 court cost pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2009). As the State properly concedes, the trial court failed orally to pronounce the fine; therefore, the imposition of the fine, surcharge, and cost was error. See Pullam v. State, 55 So.3d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence but remand for entry of a corrected judgment striking the $2,100 fine, the $105 surcharge, and the $20 court cost.

CLARK and RAY, JJ., concur.

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

WOLF, J.

Appellant appeals his judgment and sentence for attempted second-degree murder with a firearm, inflicting death or great bodily harm. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and In re Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d 149 (Fla.1991).

We find no error in appellant’s judgment and sentence. However, we find the trial court erred in imposing, in the written judgment and sentence; a $2,100 fine pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes (2009); a 5% surcharge in the amount of $105 pursuant to section 938.04, Florida Statutes (2009); and a $20 court cost pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2009). As the State properly concedes, the trial court failed orally to pronounce the fine; therefore, the imposition of the fine, surcharge, and cost was error. See Pullam v. State, 55 So.3d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence but remand for entry of a corrected judgment striking the $2,100 fine, the $105 surcharge, and the $20 court cost.

CLARK and RAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 So. 3d 738, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15031, 2011 WL 4398535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mallory-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack