GEREMI PIERCE, 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 conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon but struck improperly imposed costs.
Geremi Pierce was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sought review of his conviction, sentence, and certain costs. He argue…
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 Retroactivity cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
Geremi Pierce seeks review of several aspects of his conviction and sentence as a habitual felony offender for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. We affirm the conviction and sentence, but strike costs that were impropei'ly imposed.
Pierce asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence at trial a certified copy of his prior felony conviction to prove the “convicted felon” element of the charge despite Pierce’s offer to stipulate to his convicted felon status. We find no abuse of discretion because the trial court’s ruling follows the binding authority of Parker v. State, 408 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.1982). Because we agree with the Third District’s opinion in Brown v. State, 700 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), review granted, No. 91,764, 761 So. 2d 327 (Fla. Apr. 7, 1998), we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as a matter of great public importance:
SHOULD THE DECISION IN PARKER V. STATE, 408 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1982), BE OVERRULED IN FAVOR OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE EVI-DENTIARY REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF OF CONVICTED FELON STATUS IN FIREARM VIOLATION CASES ESTABLISHED FOR FEDERAL COURTS IN OLD CHIEF V. UNITED STATES, 519 U.S. 172, 117 S.Ct. 644,136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997)?
Pierce challenges the imposition of costs of $3 for the Juvenile Assessment Center and $3 for the Teen Court Programs without oral pronouncement or statutory designation. The State concedes that the statutes and ordinance authorizing these two mandatory costs did not become effective until July 1,1996, which is after the date of Pierce’s offense. Therefore, we strike these costs.
Affirmed; question certified; $3 costs stricken.
PARKER, C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffin v. State, 946 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…Gonzalez v. State, 939 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (involving sections 775.083(2) and 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004)); Waller v. State, 911 So. 2d 226, 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (involving section 939.18, Florida Statutes (2003)); Pierce v. State, 779 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), quashed on other grounds, 734 So. 2d 399 (Fla.1999) (involving costs for Juvenile Assessment Center and Teen Court Programs). We acknowledge that these cases do not contain a detailed analysis of the application of principles of…
-
Lang v. State, 856 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…. State, 655 So. 2d 111, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (“The trial court is not obligated to announce orally the dollar amount of [mandatory] costs or to separately identify the legal basis for these costs at the sentencing hearing.”). Cf. Pierce v. State, 779 So. 2d 286, 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“Pierce challenges the imposition of ... $3 for the Teen Court Program[] without oral pronouncement or statutory designation. The State concedes that the statutes and ordinance authorizing th[is] ... mandatory eost[ ] did no…
-
Whitaker v. State, 914 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…le a motion to correct a sentencing error. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2). Costs cannot be assessed where the authorizing statutes were enacted after the date of the offense. Hayden v. State, 753 So. 2d 720, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Pierce v. State, 779 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), quashed on other grounds, 734 So. 2d 399 (Fla.1999). Retroactive application of cost statutes does not violate ex post facto prohibitions, however, unless failure to pay those costs can increase the length of an inmate’s sentence…
Authorities Cited
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997)
- Parker v. State, 408 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1982)
- Brown v. State, 700 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)