Pinckney v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pinckney v. State

513 So. 2d 251, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2353, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12227

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 2, 1987

DocketNo. 85-2856

StatusPublished

This text of 513 So. 2d 251 (Pinckney 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

Pinckney v. State, 513 So. 2d 251, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2353, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12227 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Judge.

Herbert Pinckney appeals from the judgment and sentences for petit theft, battery on law enforcement officer, resisting officer with violence and aggravated assault. We affirm his convictions but strike the costs.

At Pinckney’s sentencing hearing, the trial court expressly waived the imposition of all court costs and the judgment contains the notation: “Court Costs Waived.” Nonetheless, it ordered Pinck-ney to pay $20 to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund under section 960.20, Florida Statutes. (1985), $2.50 under section 943.-25(4), Florida Statutes (1985), and $200 costs pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). The written judgment does not conform to the trial court’s pronouncement at the hearing. Yates v. State, 429 So.2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). In addition, the inclusion within the judgment of costs permitted by section 27.3455, with the attendant denial of gain time until the costs are paid, offends the ex post facto proscription where, as here, Pinckney’s offenses were committed prior to section 27.-3455’s effective date. State v. Yost, 507 So.2d 1099 (Fla.1987).

Accordingly, we strike the costs imposed upon Pinckney. The judgment and sentences are otherwise affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F. (Ret.), J., concur.

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

FRANK, Judge.

Herbert Pinckney appeals from the judgment and sentences for petit theft, battery on law enforcement officer, resisting officer with violence and aggravated assault. We affirm his convictions but strike the costs.

At Pinckney’s sentencing hearing, the trial court expressly waived the imposition of all court costs and the judgment contains the notation: “Court Costs Waived.” Nonetheless, it ordered Pinck-ney to pay $20 to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund under section 960.20, Florida Statutes. (1985), $2.50 under section 943.-25(4), Florida Statutes (1985), and $200 costs pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). The written judgment does not conform to the trial court’s pronouncement at the hearing. Yates v. State, 429 So.2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). In addition, the inclusion within the judgment of costs permitted by section 27.3455, with the attendant denial of gain time until the costs are paid, offends the ex post facto proscription where, as here, Pinckney’s offenses were committed prior to section 27.-3455’s effective date. State v. Yost, 507 So.2d 1099 (Fla.1987).

Accordingly, we strike the costs imposed upon Pinckney. The judgment and sentences are otherwise affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F. (Ret.), J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 So. 2d 251, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2353, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinckney-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack