LOMBARDI
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Daniel Albert Lombardi appeals his sentences, arguing that the trial court erred by imposing lump sum court costs and fines without citing statutory authority. The appellate court agreed, striking the lump sum provisions but allowing the trial court to reimpose them on remand with proper statutory citations, and permitting oral pronouncement to be waived based on Lombardi's plea agreement.
Yes. The court struck the portions of the sentencing orders imposing the lump sum fines and court costs because they lacked required statutory citations. On remand, the trial court may reimpose the fines and court costs with proper statutory authority cited in the written orders, and no new sentencing hearing is required because Lombardi waived his right to individual announcement of these costs in his plea agreement.
[1] A trial court must cite the statute authorizing each fine or court cost in a written sentencing order, regardless of whether the cost is mandatory or discretionary.
[2] When a defendant waives the right to individual announcement of discretionary fines and costs as part of a plea agreement, the trial court is not required to hold a new s…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“A written order imposing court costs must cite the statute authorizing each cost regardless of whether it is mandatory or discretionary.”
Establishes the primary legal standard that requires statutory citations for court costs in sentencing orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLombardi was sentenced across multiple case numbers. The written sentencing orders imposed either $350 or $400 in lump sum fines and court costs witho…
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 Terms cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
DANIEL ALBERT LOMBARDI,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D2023-0552
April 19, 2024 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.140 from the County Court for Pinellas County; Cathy A. McKyton, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Caroline Joan S. Picart, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laura Dempsey, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Daniel Albert Lombardi appeals his judgments and sentences across multiple case numbers. On appeal, Lombardi argues that the trial court erred by imposing lump sum court costs and fines. The State properly concedes error.1 A written order imposing court costs must cite the statute authorizing each cost regardless of whether it is mandatory or discretionary. See Weber v. State, 368 So. 3d 487, 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (citing Vick v. State, 37 So. 3d 951, 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)).2 In this case, the written sentencing order in each case number imposed either $350 or $400 lump sum fines and court costs without citing to any statutory authority. And although the plea agreement states that Lombardi agrees that he "will be assessed all statutory fines and costs" and will "pay all fines and costs, including the fines and costs checked on the attached sheets," there are no attached sheets with checked fines and costs in the record on appeal, and the plea agreement does not otherwise specify any statutory authority.
We therefore strike the portions of the sentencing orders imposing the lump sum fines and court costs. On remand, the trial court may reimpose the fines and court costs but must provide the statutory authority for each fine and court cost in the written orders. However, the trial court will not be required to hold a new sentencing hearing to orally pronounce discretionary fines and court costs because Lombardi "agree[d] to pay all fines and costs" and "waive[d his] right to individual announcement of these costs" as part of his plea agreement. See Spence v. State, 667 So. 2d 430, 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that when a denied when the trial court did not issue a timely ruling. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2). or fine as part of a plea agreement, oral pronouncement is not required because the defendant waives any objection to its imposition). We affirm Lombardi's judgments and the remainder of his sentences without further comment.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. State, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D662 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…osts “because the trial court did not cite any statutory authority for these costs in its order.” Id. at 1264 (emphasis added). Since then, the second district has regularly employed similar language when reversing cost orders. See Weber v. State, 368 So. 3d 487, 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023); Sanders v. State, 189 So. 3d 946, 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Kirby v. State, 695 So. 2d 889, 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). That said, even the second district does not always require citation to authority in the written order. See T…
-
Lombardi v. State, 368 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…ure 3.800(b)(2) during the pendency of this appeal. The motion was deemed ---PAGE 2--- A written order imposing court costs must cite the statute authorizing each cost regardless of whether it is mandatory or discretionary. See Weber v. State, 368 So. 3d 487, 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (citing Vick v. State, 37 So. 3d 951, 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)).2 In this case, the written sentencing order in each case number imposed either $350 or $400 lump sum fines and court costs without citing to any statutory au…
Authorities Cited
- Vick v. State, 37 So. 3d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Spence v. State, 667 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- King v. State, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D662 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)
- Lombardi v. State, 368 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)
- Brown v. State, 666 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)