RANDY FISHER v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: October 25, 2023
• Docket: 2022-1579
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed October 25, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1579 Lower Tribunal No. 15-897-A-K ________________

Randy Fisher, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark Wilson, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kseniya Smychkouskaya, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LINDSEY, JJ.

LOGUE, C.J.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS This matter is before us on the State of Florida’s motion to dismiss.

Randy Fisher appeals the trial court’s sentence imposed after his second

violation of probation. Fisher, however, finished serving the subject sentence

during the pendency of this appeal. For this reason, we dismiss the appeal

as moot. See York v. State, 313 So. 3d 707, 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (“Where

a sentence has been completed, any errors in that sentence are typically

rendered moot.”); Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1992) (“An

issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial

determination can have no actual effect.”). See also Zynda v. State, 847 So.

2d 1140, 1140-41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (holding that the appeal of an order

denying defendant’s motion for additional credit for time served as moot

because the defendant was released from custody during pendency of

appeal).

Fisher argues that the appeal is not moot because he still has pending

fees and fines “in connection with the [subject August 18, 2022] probation

violation proceedings . . . .” It is true that “an otherwise moot case will not be

dismissed if collateral legal consequences that affect the rights of a party

flow from the issue to be determined.” Godwin, 593 So. 2d at 212. However,

the State maintains that the $763 in fees Fisher claims were imposed on

August 18, 2022, were actually part of the fees imposed at Fisher’s original

2 sentencing on October 11, 2016. No fees were imposed on August 18, 2022,

the date of the sentence being challenged. The State’s representations are

supported by the record before us. We thus grant the State’s motion to

dismiss the appeal as moot. See Wilson v. State, 268 So. 3d 820, 820-21

(Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (defendant’s appeal deemed moot as he had

successfully completed his sentence during the pendency of his appeal, and

he was unable to identify any tangible collateral legal consequences).

Dismissed.