Rodriquez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rodriquez v. State

505 So. 2d 586, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1015

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 10, 1987

DocketNo. 85-2423

StatusPublished

This text of 505 So. 2d 586 (Rodriquez 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

Rodriquez v. State, 505 So. 2d 586, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1015 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

SANDERLIN, Judge.

Appellant challenges his judgment and sentences for aggravated battery and pos[587]*587session of a firearm by a convicted felon. For the reasons stated below, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

First, appellant claims that the trial court erred in imposing costs against him under section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). Appellant had been adjudicated indigent on two previous occasions for purposes of trial. At sentencing, the trial court did not address the issue of court costs. Following sentencing, the judgment reflected court costs of $200. Appellant subsequently moved pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 to correct the imposition of costs under section 27.-3455. The trial court converted the $200 court costs to community service. On appeal, appellant now argues that the conversion of court costs to community service should be stricken and asserts that the application of section 27.3455 against him violates ex post facto provisions of the Florida and Federal Constitutions. Appellant failed to raise this objection in the trial court; therefore, he has waived the right to assert his ex post facto argument on appeal. See Johnson v. State, 495 So.2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Accordingly, we affirm on this point.

Second, appellant correctly points out that the trial court did not afford him notice or a hearing before assessing costs under section 943.25(8), as required by Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984). Accordingly, we strike these costs and remand to the trial court to afford appellant the procedural requirements of Jenkins.

Third, appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to provide written reasons for departure from the recommended guidelines sentence. We agree, State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985), and reverse appellant’s sentences and remand for resentencing. On resentencing, the trial court may find guidance in the supreme court’s recent decision in Williams v. State, 500 So.2d 501' (Fla.1986).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DANAHY, 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

SANDERLIN, Judge.

Appellant challenges his judgment and sentences for aggravated battery and pos[587]*587session of a firearm by a convicted felon. For the reasons stated below, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

First, appellant claims that the trial court erred in imposing costs against him under section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). Appellant had been adjudicated indigent on two previous occasions for purposes of trial. At sentencing, the trial court did not address the issue of court costs. Following sentencing, the judgment reflected court costs of $200. Appellant subsequently moved pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 to correct the imposition of costs under section 27.-3455. The trial court converted the $200 court costs to community service. On appeal, appellant now argues that the conversion of court costs to community service should be stricken and asserts that the application of section 27.3455 against him violates ex post facto provisions of the Florida and Federal Constitutions. Appellant failed to raise this objection in the trial court; therefore, he has waived the right to assert his ex post facto argument on appeal. See Johnson v. State, 495 So.2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Accordingly, we affirm on this point.

Second, appellant correctly points out that the trial court did not afford him notice or a hearing before assessing costs under section 943.25(8), as required by Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984). Accordingly, we strike these costs and remand to the trial court to afford appellant the procedural requirements of Jenkins.

Third, appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to provide written reasons for departure from the recommended guidelines sentence. We agree, State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985), and reverse appellant’s sentences and remand for resentencing. On resentencing, the trial court may find guidance in the supreme court’s recent decision in Williams v. State, 500 So.2d 501' (Fla.1986).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 So. 2d 586, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriquez-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack