From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arron v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 25, 2006
939 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Summary

reversing the trial court's imposition of "prosecution and investigative costs" based on errors first raised in defendant's rule 3.800(b) motion

Summary of this case from Bartolone v. State

Opinion

No. 4D05-1391.

October 25, 2006.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2002-2570 CF and 2002-2571 CF.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Dea Abramschmitt, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laura Fisher Zibura, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Defendant entered a no contest plea in two separate cases charging robbery with a deadly weapon while wearing a mask and attempted robbery with a deadly weapon. He was duly sentenced and filed a timely rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing errors. Because the trial judge entered no ruling on his motion within the time prescribed by rule 3.800(b)(1)(B), the motion is deemed denied. He appeals.

We accept the State's concession of error as to the first issue. We agree that the 10-year minimum mandatory provision on the robbery charge in the second case (number 2002-2571 CF) was not pronounced at sentencing, and consequently the written sentence is in error. We strike the minimum mandatory provision from the written sentence.

As to the second issue, the trial court imposed prosecution and investigating costs in favor of the Sheriff. The State also correctly concedes that this was error. To impose costs under section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2003), the agency expending the costs must specifically request reimbursement and provide documentation to the court. Ortiz v. State, 884 So.2d 77, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). No such request or documentation was made or provided. We therefore reverse the imposition of these costs.

STONE, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Arron v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 25, 2006
939 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

reversing the trial court's imposition of "prosecution and investigative costs" based on errors first raised in defendant's rule 3.800(b) motion

Summary of this case from Bartolone v. State

reversing the trial court's imposition of "prosecution and investigative costs" based on errors first raised in defendant's rule 3.800(b) motion

Summary of this case from Bartolone v. State

In Felton, the defendant was sentenced after entering a no contest plea, and the trial court imposed “prosecution and investigative costs” pursuant to section 938.27. 939 So.2d at 1159.

Summary of this case from Allen v. State

In Felton, the defendant was sentenced after entering a no contest plea, and the trial court imposed “prosecution and investigative costs” pursuant to section 938.27. 939 So.2d at 1159.

Summary of this case from Allen v. State
Case details for

Arron v. State

Case Details

Full title:Arron FELTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Oct 25, 2006

Citations

939 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Citing Cases

Dixon v. State

That was erroneous. See § 938.27(1), Fla. Stat. (2016) ; Richards v. State , 288 So. 3d 574, 577 (Fla. 2020)…

Bartolone v. State

800(b) motion." Anderson v. State , 229 So. 3d 383, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (citing Jackson v. State , 983…