Pullam v. State

55 So. 3d 674, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 2215, 2011 WL 589928
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 22, 2011
Docket1D10-1654
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 55 So. 3d 674 (Pullam 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
Pullam v. State, 55 So. 3d 674, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 2215, 2011 WL 589928 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals his judgment and sentence for possession of a controlled substance. The 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. 991). After a careful review of the record, we find no error in the appellant’s judgment and sentence. However, we reverse and remand with directions to correct the judgment for fines and costs by striking a $200 fine, a $10 surcharge, and a $20 court cost.

The written judgment for fines and costs includes a $200 fine under section 775.083, Florida Statutes (2009). Fines under section 775.083 are discretionary and must be orally pronounced at sentencing. See Dadds v. State, 946 So.2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). In the instant case, because it failed to orally pronounce it at sentencing, the trial court erred in imposing the fine and it must be stricken.

The written judgment for fines and costs also includes a $10 surcharge under section 938.04, Florida Statutes (2009), and a $20 court cost under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2009). Section 938.04(1) authorizes a five percent surcharge on “any fine for any criminal offense prescribed by law.” Section 938.06(1) authorizes a $20 court cost “in addition to any fine prescribed by law.” In the instant case, because the trial court erred in imposing the $200 fine, the trial court also erred in imposing the $10 surcharge and the $20 court cost and both must be stricken. See Dadds, 946 So.2d at 1130.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence but remand for the entry of a correct judgment for fines and costs striking the $200 fine, the $10 surcharge, and the $20 court cost.

WOLF, WEBSTER, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Cortez Ford v. State of Florida
167 So. 3d 518 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Sharpe v. State
115 So. 3d 1021 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Sims v. State
110 So. 3d 975 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Spear v. State
109 So. 3d 232 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Giles v. State
103 So. 3d 1058 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Kirkland v. State
106 So. 3d 4 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Pruitt v. State
98 So. 3d 231 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Drayton v. State
89 So. 3d 287 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Lamoreaux v. State
88 So. 3d 379 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Nix v. State
84 So. 3d 424 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Williams v. State
82 So. 3d 186 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Clavelle v. State
80 So. 3d 456 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Baker v. State
78 So. 3d 719 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Mallory v. State
70 So. 3d 738 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 So. 3d 674, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 2215, 2011 WL 589928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pullam-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.