Newsome v. State

623 So. 2d 1250, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9830, 1993 WL 383496
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Newsome v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3074
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 29, 1993·No. No. 92-01792·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Bernard Newsome appeals his convictions for battery and resisting arrest with violence [1251]*1251and the sentence imposed on the resisting charge. We affirm the convictions and sentence but remand for corrections to the judgment.

The judgment lists the battery as a third-degree felony. Battery is a first-degree misdemeanor. Section 784.03(2), Fla.Stat. (1991). The trial court, upon remand, shall correct the judgment to show this.

The judgment reflected the following costs: $20 pursuant to section 960.20; $3 pursuant to section 943.25(4); $2 pursuant to section 943.25(8); and $200 as additional court costs. Newsome challenges all of these costs except the $20 award. We conclude that these costs are mandated statutorily.1 The trial court merely used an outdated judgment form which did not reflect the current applicable statutory authority. We remand for entry of a judgment which shows the correct statutory authority. See Veracierta v. State, 589 So.2d 950 (Fla.2d DCA 1991).

We affirm the convictions and sentence and remand for corrections to the judgment. The defendant does not need to be present.

FRANK, C.J., and RYDER and PARKER, JJ., ^concur.

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

Newsome v. State, 623 So. 2d 1250, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9830, 1993 WL 383496 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

623 So. 2d 1250 (Newsome v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Veracierta v. State
589 So. 2d 950 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)