Colson v. State
114 So. 3d 415
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant convicted of robbery and sentenced to 15 years PRR.
- Anders appeal filed challenging PRR designation and resentencing.
- State relied on a release date for PRR that may reflect temporary confinement, not state prison release.
- Court remands for reconsideration of PRR designation and resentencing.
- Parts of the judgment, including fines, surcharge, and indigent lien, are struck for improper or notice issues.
- Scrivener’s error on the CP Code score sheet directs correction to reflect jury verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PRR designation is proper. | Appellant argues the PRR date is from temporary confinement. | State contends the PRR date supports PRR designation. | Remand for proper PRR determination. |
| Whether discretionary fine and related surcharge were properly imposed. | Fine was discretionary and not properly pronounced. | State argues the fine and surcharge were validly imposed. | Strike the discretionary fine and related surcharge; may reimpose on remand with proper procedure. |
| Whether indigent legal assistance fee was properly assessed. | Indigent lien imposed without proper notice to appellant. | State argues the fee was properly imposed. | Strike indigent legal assistance lien; may reimpose with notice on remand. |
| Whether scrivener’s error on score sheet requires correction. | Score sheet should reflect jury verdict, not plea entry. | Not explicit in record; correction needed. | Remand to correct scrivener’s error; reflect jury verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinson v. State, 851 So.2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (PRR timing issue based on release type)
- Nix v. State, 84 So.3d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (discretionary fines/surcharges must be properly pronounced)
- Kirkland v. State, 106 So.3d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (procedural requirements for imposing fines/surcharges on remand)
- Drayton v. State, 89 So.3d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (scrivener’s error considerations)
- McCarthan v. State, 91 So.3d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (notice requirements for fees)
- Spear v. State, 109 So.3d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan.16, 2013) (Crime Stoppers cost assessment transition to mandatory cost)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (right to Anders review in criminal appeals)