Stephen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stephen v. State

150 So. 3d 268, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17606, 2014 WL 5461964

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 29, 2014

DocketNo. 2D10-4018

StatusPublished

This text of 150 So. 3d 268 (Stephen 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

Stephen v. State, 150 So. 3d 268, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17606, 2014 WL 5461964 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

SLEET, Judge.

Shannon Stephen appeals his convictions and sentences for DUI manslaughter and leaving the scene of a crash involving death. Stephen correctly argues that the trial court erred in awarding $225 under section 938.05(1), Florida Statutes (2005). Stephen preserved this issue by filing a timely Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion. We affirm his remaining issue on appeal without further comment.

We review the statutory requirements for imposing assessments under section [269]*269938.05 de novo. See Chamblee v. State, 93 So.3d 1184, 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), superseded by statute on other grounds, Spear v. State, 109 So.3d 232, 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). The State properly concedes error on this issue. The controlling statute is the version that was in effect at the time of the offense. See Swift v. State, 53 So.3d 394, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Because the offense date in this case was March 26, 2006, section 938.05, Florida Statutes (2005), controls. As that statute authorizes a fíne of only $200, we reverse the award of $225 and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected order assessing fines and costs.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

NORTHCUTT and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.

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

SLEET, Judge.

Shannon Stephen appeals his convictions and sentences for DUI manslaughter and leaving the scene of a crash involving death. Stephen correctly argues that the trial court erred in awarding $225 under section 938.05(1), Florida Statutes (2005). Stephen preserved this issue by filing a timely Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion. We affirm his remaining issue on appeal without further comment.

We review the statutory requirements for imposing assessments under section [269]*269938.05 de novo. See Chamblee v. State, 93 So.3d 1184, 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), superseded by statute on other grounds, Spear v. State, 109 So.3d 232, 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). The State properly concedes error on this issue. The controlling statute is the version that was in effect at the time of the offense. See Swift v. State, 53 So.3d 394, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Because the offense date in this case was March 26, 2006, section 938.05, Florida Statutes (2005), controls. As that statute authorizes a fíne of only $200, we reverse the award of $225 and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected order assessing fines and costs.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

NORTHCUTT and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 So. 3d 268, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17606, 2014 WL 5461964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephen-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack