Adolfo Ramirez v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJuly 15, 2021
Docket1D20-1848
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D20-1848
_____________________________
ADOLFO RAMIREZ,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.
Christopher N. Patterson, Judge.
July 15, 2021
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges his convictions and sentences, arguing
that the trial court erred in making certain evidentiary rulings and
in denying his motion to correct a sentencing error filed pursuant
to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). We affirm
Appellant’s convictions and sentences without further comment.
However, we agree with Appellant that the trial court erred
in imposing a $700 fine and a $35 surcharge on that fine pursuant
to sections 775.083(1) and 938.04, Florida Statutes, in the written
judgment when neither the fine nor the surcharge was specifically
pronounced during Appellant’s sentencing hearing. See
Osterhoudt v. State, 214 So. 3d 550, 551 (Fla. 2017) (explaining
that due process requires that a trial court individually pronounce
discretionary fees, costs, and fines during a sentencing hearing
and remanding for resentencing where “the trial court may
reimpose the discretionary fine and surcharge after providing
notice to Osterhoudt and following the proper procedure”);
Johnson v. State, 293 So. 3d 582, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (holding
that the trial court erred in imposing a discretionary fine and
surcharge without an individual oral pronouncement, reversing
and remanding for the trial court to “have an opportunity to orally
re-impose the fines, surcharge, and costs, or strike the fines,” and
explaining that “[s]hould the trial court strike the fines in an
amended judgment, Appellant need not be present”).
Accordingly, we reverse the fine and surcharge and remand
for the trial court to have the opportunity to orally re-impose them
after providing notice to Appellant and following the proper
procedure. If the trial court strikes the fine and surcharge in an
amended judgment, Appellant need not be present. See id. at 584–
85.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
LEWIS, OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and David A. Henson, Assistant
Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Robert "Charlie" Lee,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
2