Yanco Peterson v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Yanco Peterson v. State of Florida

151 So. 3d 562

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 15, 2014

Docket1D12-3788, 1D12-3791

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 151 So. 3d 562 (Yanco Peterson 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

Yanco Peterson v. State of Florida, 151 So. 3d 562 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm conviction and-sentence imposed in lower court case number -08-781 CF (1D12-3788) for violation of probation, and the convictions and sentences imposed in lower court case number 10-356CF (1D12-3791) for six counts of fighting or baiting animals. Appellant is collaterally estopped from arguing the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress. He challenged the denial in a prior case raising the same arguments as raised here, and this Court affirmed the order per curiam. See Peterson v. State, 118 So.3d 224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); see also Ziegler v. State, 116 So.3d 255, 258 (Fla.2013) (“In Florida, collateral estoppel prevents the same parties from relitigating issues that have already been fully litigated and determined.”). In addition, the Order Granting Motion to Cite Statute and Strike Fine and Surcharges entered July 30, 2013, in lower court case number 08-781 CF remedies the errors in the amended final judgment that Appellant now seeks to be corrected. Further, the sentence in the amended final judgment in lower court case number 10-356CF for Count 19 accurately reflects the sentence the trial judge orally pronounced.

However, the amended final judgment in lower court case number 10-356CF imposes a discretionary fine and related surcharge under sections 775.083 and 938.04, Florida Statutes, respectively, which the trial court failed to specifically announce at sentencing. Accordingly, we strike these costs and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected judgment. On remand, the court may reimpose the discretionary fine and surcharge after following the appropriate procedures. See DeSalvo v. State, 107 So.3d 1185, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Nix v. State, 84 So.3d 424, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part, and REMANDED.

VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm conviction and-sentence imposed in lower court case number -08-781 CF (1D12-3788) for violation of probation, and the convictions and sentences imposed in lower court case number 10-356CF (1D12-3791) for six counts of fighting or baiting animals. Appellant is collaterally estopped from arguing the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress. He challenged the denial in a prior case raising the same arguments as raised here, and this Court affirmed the order per curiam. See Peterson v. State, 118 So.3d 224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); see also Ziegler v. State, 116 So.3d 255, 258 (Fla.2013) (“In Florida, collateral estoppel prevents the same parties from relitigating issues that have already been fully litigated and determined.”). In addition, the Order Granting Motion to Cite Statute and Strike Fine and Surcharges entered July 30, 2013, in lower court case number 08-781 CF remedies the errors in the amended final judgment that Appellant now seeks to be corrected. Further, the sentence in the amended final judgment in lower court case number 10-356CF for Count 19 accurately reflects the sentence the trial judge orally pronounced.

However, the amended final judgment in lower court case number 10-356CF imposes a discretionary fine and related surcharge under sections 775.083 and 938.04, Florida Statutes, respectively, which the trial court failed to specifically announce at sentencing. Accordingly, we strike these costs and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected judgment. On remand, the court may reimpose the discretionary fine and surcharge after following the appropriate procedures. See DeSalvo v. State, 107 So.3d 1185, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Nix v. State, 84 So.3d 424, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part, and REMANDED.

VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 So. 3d 562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yanco-peterson-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack