Parham v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Parham v. State

902 So. 2d 287, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7868, 2005 WL 1225418

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 25, 2005

DocketNo. 2D04-1633

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 902 So. 2d 287 (Parham 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

Parham v. State, 902 So. 2d 287, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7868, 2005 WL 1225418 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

WHATLEY, Judge.

In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we find merit only in appellate counsel’s argument that the trial court erred in denying the motion to correct sentencing error filed pursuant to Florida Rule ' of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).

The trial court improperly imposed the following discretionary costs without oral pronouncement and citation of authority in the two cases referenced by Parham’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion: $2.00 for the Criminal Justice Education by Municipalities and Counties pursuant to section 938.15, Florida Statutes (2003); a $150 court facility fee pursuant to section 939.18; and a $22 fine pursuant to section 775.083. See Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111, 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In addition, the trial court improperly imposed investigative costs of $100 and $30 without the requisite documentation. See § 938.27(1), Fla. Stat. (2003); Ubertaccio v. State, 892 So.2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Accordingly, we strike the aforementioned costs in circuit court case numbers CRC043-00113 and CRC04-00962 but otherwise affirm Parham’s convictions and sentences.

SALCINES and WALLACE, JJ,, Concur.

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

WHATLEY, Judge.

In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we find merit only in appellate counsel’s argument that the trial court erred in denying the motion to correct sentencing error filed pursuant to Florida Rule ' of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).

The trial court improperly imposed the following discretionary costs without oral pronouncement and citation of authority in the two cases referenced by Parham’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion: $2.00 for the Criminal Justice Education by Municipalities and Counties pursuant to section 938.15, Florida Statutes (2003); a $150 court facility fee pursuant to section 939.18; and a $22 fine pursuant to section 775.083. See Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111, 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In addition, the trial court improperly imposed investigative costs of $100 and $30 without the requisite documentation. See § 938.27(1), Fla. Stat. (2003); Ubertaccio v. State, 892 So.2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Accordingly, we strike the aforementioned costs in circuit court case numbers CRC043-00113 and CRC04-00962 but otherwise affirm Parham’s convictions and sentences.

SALCINES and WALLACE, JJ,, Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

902 So. 2d 287, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7868, 2005 WL 1225418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parham-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack