ELDREDGE A. HENDERSON, 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.
Eldredge Henderson challenged his conviction and consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for aggravated battery and assault with a deadly weapon arising from a single criminal episode. The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentences based on Williams v. State, which held that consecutive sentences under Florida's 10-20-Life statute are permissible but not mandatory, and also reversed the imposition of $1,000 in non-statutory jury costs.
Consecutive sentences under section 775.087(2)(d) for offenses committed contemporaneously are permissible but not mandatory. The trial court must exercise discretion in imposing such consecutive sentences. The $1,000 jury costs must be reversed because they lack statutory authority and were imposed without proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
[1] Consecutive mandatory minimum sentences under the 10-20-Life statute for offenses committed contemporaneously are permissible but not mandatory.
[2] A trial court must have the opportunity to exercise discretion in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum terms.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“consecutive sentences under section 775.087(2)(d) for offenses committed contemporaneously are permissible but not mandatory”
Establishes the holding that consecutive sentences are discretionary, not mandatory, overruling prior law requiring consecutive sentences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenderson was convicted of one count of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon arising from …
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 Court-Appointed Counsel Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Eldredge A. Henderson, challenges his judgment and two consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for one count of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, arising from a single criminal episode. We affirm the conviction without comment, but reverse the sentences ’ pursuant to Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016), We further reverse the imposition of certain costs imposed with the sentences.
At Appellant’s sentencing hearing the trial court imposed consecutive mandar tory minimum terms under the 10-20-Life statute, as required under then-controlling decisions. However, the Florida Supreme Court in Williams held that consecutive sentences under section 775.087(2)(d) for offenses committed contemporaneously are permissible but not mandatory. Thus, because the trial court did not have the opportunity to exercise discretion in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum terms, we reverse Appellant’s sentences and remand for resentencing.
Appellant also challenges the costs and fees imposed in the trial court’s order, including the $100 cost of prosecution, the $150 court-appointed counsel fee, and the $1,000 “juror costs.” We affirm the $100 cost of prosecution, and the $150 court-appointed counsel fee because notice and hearing are not required before imposition of these minimum statutory amounts. Mills v. State, 177 So.3d 984, 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (en banc) (“Because the minimum amount is mandated by statute, binding on the court and the defendant alike, no hearing is necessary or appropriate.”).
However, the record does not support the trial court’s contention that the “juror costs” were mandatory, so the mere pronouncement at sentencing of $1,000 in jury costs was insufficient to notify Appellant that such costs'would be imposed or to provide an opportunity to be heard. See Nix v. State, 84 So.3d 424, 426 (Fla. 1st *640DCA 2012). Although the trial court described the “juror costs” as mandatory, it provided no statutory authority for this proposition, and “costs of judicial administration” are not included in the costs of prosecution under section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes. See Davis v. State, 42 So.3d 807, 808-09 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Accordingly, we reverse the imposition of the $1,000 “juror costs.”
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.
RAY, OSTERHAUS, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Malley v. State, 378 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…er section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2010) without a request from the state on the record . . . .” See also Parks v. State, 371 So. 3d 392, 393–94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023); Wasden v. State, 342 So. 3d 298, 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022); Henderson v. State, 192 So. 3d 638, 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). We affirm as to the $100 cost of prosecution. We note, as the First District did in Parks, that the Second District has taken the opposite position on this question of law, holding in D.L.J. v. State, 331 So. 3d 227, 228…
-
Webb v. State, 197 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…ccordingly, because the trial court believed it lacked discretion to impose concurrent mandatory minimum sentences, and because Williams now holds .otherwise, we reverse and remand for new sentencing consistent with Williams. See Henderson v. State, 192 So. 3d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (“[Bjecause the trial court did not have the opportunity to exercise discretion in imposing eonsecutivé mandatory minimum terms, we reverse Appellant’s sentences and remand for resentencing.”). REVERSED and REMANDED. B.L. THO…
-
Brown v. State, 211 So. 3d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…is that they represent expenditures that must be made in order to maintain and operate the judicial system irrespective of specific violations of the law.” Id. Indeed, our court has held such costs are not statutorily authorized. Henderson v. State, 192 So. 3d 638, 640 (Fla 1st DCA 2016) (reversing imposition of $1,000 of “juror costs” that are “costs of judicial administration” under section 938.27(1)); see also Davis v. State, 42 So. 3d 807, 808-09 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“The only limitations that have been r…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016)
- NIX v. State, 84 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Davis v. State, 42 So. 3d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)