Quiroga v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Quiroga v. State

910 So. 2d 939, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14699, 2005 WL 2291216

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 21, 2005

DocketNo. 2D04-4048

StatusPublished

This text of 910 So. 2d 939 (Quiroga 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

Quiroga v. State, 910 So. 2d 939, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14699, 2005 WL 2291216 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

KELLY, Judge.

In this appeal brought pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Pablo Quiroga challenges Quiroga’s convictions and sentences for unauthorized possession of a driver’s license (count one), driving under the influence (count two), and driving while license suspended (count three). Quiroga entered no contest pleas reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss count one. We have reviewed the record and conclude that denial of Quiroga’s motion to dismiss was proper. Because Quiroga failed to raise any other dispositive issue on appeal, we affirm his convictions. See Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114 (Fla.2000).

While this appeal was pending, Quiroga timely filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) requesting that the trial court strike the $65 cost assessed for court facilities and the $50 cost for “crime prevention” because the court failed to orally pronounce or consider his financial ability to pay these discretionary costs. See § 939.18(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003). The trial court agreed and entered an order striking both costs. However, an amended judgment and sentence reflecting this order was not filed. We therefore remand for entry of an amended judgment and sentence in accordance with the trial court’s order. See Weinheimer v. State, 829 So.2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Affirmed; remanded with directions.

STRINGER and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

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

KELLY, Judge.

In this appeal brought pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Pablo Quiroga challenges Quiroga’s convictions and sentences for unauthorized possession of a driver’s license (count one), driving under the influence (count two), and driving while license suspended (count three). Quiroga entered no contest pleas reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss count one. We have reviewed the record and conclude that denial of Quiroga’s motion to dismiss was proper. Because Quiroga failed to raise any other dispositive issue on appeal, we affirm his convictions. See Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114 (Fla.2000).

While this appeal was pending, Quiroga timely filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) requesting that the trial court strike the $65 cost assessed for court facilities and the $50 cost for “crime prevention” because the court failed to orally pronounce or consider his financial ability to pay these discretionary costs. See § 939.18(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003). The trial court agreed and entered an order striking both costs. However, an amended judgment and sentence reflecting this order was not filed. We therefore remand for entry of an amended judgment and sentence in accordance with the trial court’s order. See Weinheimer v. State, 829 So.2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Affirmed; remanded with directions.

STRINGER and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

910 So. 2d 939, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14699, 2005 WL 2291216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quiroga-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack