THEODTIS HOWARD MAYNER, 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 affirmed the appellant's sentence as a habitual felony offender upon probation revocation but struck $3.00 in excess county delinquency prevention costs that exceeded the statutory limit.
A trial court properly sentences a defendant as a habitual felony offender upon probation revocation, but must comply with statutory limits on county delinquency prevention costs.
[1] County delinquency prevention costs under Florida Statute § 775.0833 are limited to $3.00 per case and excess assessments must be struck even if not orally announced at s…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Mayner was sentenced as a habitual felony offender upon revocation of his probation and was assessed $6.00 in county delinquency prevention …
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 Mandatory Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant challenges his judgments and sentences entered upon the revocation of his probation and upon his guilty plea to the substantive offenses that also resulted in his revocation of probation. In his first issue on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him as an habitual felony offender upon revocation of his probation. In his second issue, appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing $6.00 in county delinquency prevention costs in the substantive offenses that resulted in his revocation of probation.
After a review of the record, we find no merit in appellant’s first issue on appeal and affirm his sentence as an habitual felony offender entered upon revocation of his probation. We do, however, agree with the second issue on appeal that the court erred in imposing $6.00 in county delinquency prevention costs in one of his cases. The State concedes that appellant should not have been assessed such costs because the statute limits the assessment to $3.00 per ease. See § 775.0833, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). Because this is a mandatory cost it was not required to be orally announced at sentencing. We, therefore, strike the additional $3.00 assessed pursuant to the statute.
PARKER, C.J., and LENDERMAN, JOHN C., Associate Judge, concur.