William Henry Thomas, III v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

William Henry Thomas, III v. State of Florida

190 So. 3d 222, 2016 WL 1696617, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6481

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 28, 2016

Docket1D14-5544

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 190 So. 3d 222 (William Henry Thomas, III v. State of Florida) 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

William Henry Thomas, III v. State of Florida, 190 So. 3d 222, 2016 WL 1696617, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6481 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

■ This appeal is brought under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Upon review of the record, we find no preserved error warranting reversal. We affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence.

*223 However, a review of the record reveals a possible sentencing error concerning the court’s assessment of $100 in sheriffs investigative costs imposed pursuant to section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2010), as the court did not orally pronounce the discretionary cost at the sentencing hearing. Mills v. State, 177 So.3d 984, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (holding that the trial court erred in imposing the $100 sheriffs investigative cost “without notice or hearing and without specifically identifying it at sentencing”); Lippwe v. State, 152 So.3d 782, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (ruling that investigative fees pursuant to section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes,, “must be requested on the record by the appropriate agency”); Kirkland v. State, 106 So.3d 4, 4-5 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that “the trial court should have orally pronounced the $100 investigative cost, as it is a discretionary cost and not a mandatory'cost”). Because appellant did not préserve the error either by objecting during imposition of the sentence or by filing a motion to correct sentencing errors, this Court must affirm. See Ramos v. State, 156 So.3d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). We do so without prejudice to appellant’s right to file an appropriate post-conviction motion'to correct any unpreserved sentencing errors. See id.-, see also Collando-Pena v. State, 141 So.3d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (affirming appellant’s judgment and unpreserved sentencing error “without prejudice to his right to seek timely collateral relief’).

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS and WINOKUR, JJ., Concur. SWANSON, J„ Concurs In Result Only.

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

PER CURIAM.

■ This appeal is brought under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Upon review of the record, we find no preserved error warranting reversal. We affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence.

*223 However, a review of the record reveals a possible sentencing error concerning the court’s assessment of $100 in sheriffs investigative costs imposed pursuant to section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2010), as the court did not orally pronounce the discretionary cost at the sentencing hearing. Mills v. State, 177 So.3d 984, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (holding that the trial court erred in imposing the $100 sheriffs investigative cost “without notice or hearing and without specifically identifying it at sentencing”); Lippwe v. State, 152 So.3d 782, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (ruling that investigative fees pursuant to section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes,, “must be requested on the record by the appropriate agency”); Kirkland v. State, 106 So.3d 4, 4-5 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that “the trial court should have orally pronounced the $100 investigative cost, as it is a discretionary cost and not a mandatory'cost”). Because appellant did not préserve the error either by objecting during imposition of the sentence or by filing a motion to correct sentencing errors, this Court must affirm. See Ramos v. State, 156 So.3d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). We do so without prejudice to appellant’s right to file an appropriate post-conviction motion'to correct any unpreserved sentencing errors. See id.-, see also Collando-Pena v. State, 141 So.3d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (affirming appellant’s judgment and unpreserved sentencing error “without prejudice to his right to seek timely collateral relief’).

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS and WINOKUR, JJ., Concur. SWANSON, J„ Concurs In Result Only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 So. 3d 222, 2016 WL 1696617, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-henry-thomas-iii-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack