Singletary v. State ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
    MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
    IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    OF FLORIDA
    SECOND DISTRICT
    JAMES TIMOTHY SINGLETARY,          )
    )
    Appellant,              )
    )
    v.                                 )                   Case No. 2D14-3500
    )
    STATE OF FLORIDA,                  )
    )
    Appellee.               )
    ___________________________________)
    Opinion filed August 10, 2016.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for
    Hillsborough County; Daniel Perry, Judge.
    Howard L. Dimming, II, Public Defender,
    and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public
    Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
    Tallahassee, and Brandon R. Christian,
    Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for
    Appellee.
    SILBERMAN, Judge.
    James Singletary, who was convicted of dealing in stolen property and
    providing false information to a pawn broker, appeals his sentences imposed after
    revocation of his probation. Specifically, Singletary challenges the imposition of various
    costs without the citation of statutory authority. He preserved this issue by filing a
    Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error. The
    record reflects that this motion was granted, but because a written order was not filed
    within the time specified, the motion was deemed denied under rule 3.800(b)(2)(B).1
    The State has appropriately conceded error in this appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
    Singletary's judgments and sentences but strike the costs.
    "The statutory authority for all costs imposed, whether they are mandatory
    or discretionary, must be cited in the written order." Vick v. State, 
    37 So. 3d 951
    , 952
    (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (quoting Kirby v. State, 
    695 So. 2d 889
    , 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)).
    On remand, the trial court may again impose these costs if it cites the statutory authority
    underlying their assessment. See 
    Vick, 37 So. 3d at 952
    .
    Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
    NORTHCUTT and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
    1
    A virtually identical situation occurred in Sanders v. State, 
    189 So. 3d 946
    (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2D14-3500

Judges: Silberman, Northcutt, Sleet

Filed Date: 8/10/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024