DEVASSE THOMPSON
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.
Devasse Thompson appealed his sentence following a no contest plea, challenging an order requiring him to pay supervision costs despite being sentenced to prison with no probation, community control, or supervision. The court agreed the supervision cost order was erroneous as it violated Florida statute and reversed the judgment with instructions to correct the sentencing.
A trial court may not order supervision costs when a defendant is sentenced to prison without probation, community control, or other supervision. The supervision cost order must be removed from Thompson's judgment as it violates Florida statute.
[1] Supervision costs imposed under Florida law may only be assessed against a defendant who is actually ordered to be placed under supervision, and such costs cannot be impo…
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 intelligence“Any person ordered by the court, the Department of Corrections, or the Florida Commission on Offender Review to be placed under supervision under this chapter, chapter 944, chapter 945, chapter 947, or chapter 958, or in a pretrial intervention program, must pay the department a total sum of money equal to the total month or portion of a month of supervision times the court-ordered amount, but not to exceed the actual per diem cost of the supervision.”
Florida statute establishing that supervision costs may only be imposed when a person is actually ordered to supervision; Thompson's case involved no such order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThompson pleaded no contest to three charges: burglary of a dwelling, trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance, and resisting an offi…
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 Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________ Case No. 6D23-2376 Lower Tribunal No. CF22-007468-XX _____________________________ DEVASSE THOMPSON,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County. Dana Y. Moore, Judge. May 24, 2024 SMITH, J.
Devasse Thompson (“Thompson”) appeals the judgment and sentence imposed following his no contest plea to three separate charges,1 arguing that the trial court erroneously ordered him to pay costs of supervision after he was sentenced
attributing it to a likely scrivener’s error; we agree that Thompson’s position is well taken. See § 948.09(1)(a)(1), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“Any person ordered by the court,
the Department of Corrections, or the Florida Commission on Offender Review to be placed under supervision under this chapter, chapter 944, chapter 945, chapter
947, or chapter 958, or in a pretrial intervention program, must . . . pay the department a total sum of money equal to the total month or portion of a month of supervision times the court-ordered amount, but not to exceed the actual per diem cost of the supervision.”) (emphasis added).
During the pendency of this appeal, Thompson also raised this issue through a motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.800(b)(2). The motion should have been granted, but because it was not ruled on within sixty days, it was deemed automatically denied. Fla. R. Crim. P.
3.800(b)(2)(B) (“[I]f the trial court does not file an order ruling on the motion within
60 days, the motion shall be deemed denied.”). This denial was erroneous, thus we reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter a corrected judgment removing the supervision costs.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions. MIZE and GANNAM, JJ., concur.
3
Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Stephania A. Valantasis, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED