Yanco Peterson v. State of Florida

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
YANCO PETERSON, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D12-3788
1D12-3791
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed December 16, 2014.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County.
Jonathan E. Sjostrom, Judge.
Jeffrey E. Lewis, and Michael J. Titus, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lauren L. Brudnicki, Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm conviction and sentence imposed in lower court case number 08-
781CF (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 08-781CF 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.
2
VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO, and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
3