ERNST BECKMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the imposition of community service in lieu of court costs under a statute effective after the crime was committed violates ex post facto provisions.
Beckman was charged with burglary, pleaded nolo contendere, and was sentenced. The court imposed community service in lieu of court costs under a stat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Procedural Change cases and more on FLexlaw
SANDERLIN, Judge.
Beckman appeals the trial court’s order which denied his motion to suppress. We affirm. Beckman also questions the trial court’s imposition of sixty hours community service in lieu of court costs. § 27.3455, Fla.Stat. (1985).
By information filed October 16, 1984, Beckman was charged with two counts of burglary. § 810.02, Fla.Stat. (1983). On December 6, 1985, Beckman pleaded nolo contendere and was sentenced under the guidelines. Besides the sentence, the court followed chapter 27 and imposed the community service which Beckman now challenges. Florida Statute section 27.3455 (1985) became effective July 1, 1985. Thus, Beckman argues that the imposition of community service in lieu of court costs is a penalty which did not exist when the alleged crimes were committed and therefore, violates ex post facto provisions. See U.S.Const. art. I, § 10, and Fla.Const. art. I §10. We agree, Bowman v. State, 495 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) and as in Bowman, we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question of great public importance:
DOES THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 27.3455, FLORIDA STATUTES (1985) TO CRIMES COMMITTED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE STATUTE VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, OR DOES THE STATUTE MERELY EFFECT A PROCEDURAL CHANGE AS IS PERMITTED UNDER STATE v. JACKSON, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985)?
DANAHY, C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- Bowman v. State, 495 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)