Merricks v. State
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9587
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Merricks appeals an order denying postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
- The trial court treated the motion as a correction of illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a).
- The court clarified probation and community control orders; the states that this clarification did not amount to an unlawful sentence enhancement.
- During clarification, the trial court added electronic monitoring with an ankle bracelet for a period when Merricks would reside at home pending admission to a group home.
- Merricks argues he should not have to pay the costs of electronic monitoring; this issue was not raised in the 3.850 motion and is procedurally barred.
- The transcript shows the trial court did not orally pronounce Merricks liable for monitoring costs, creating a potential discrepancy between written sentence and oral pronouncement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the clarification of probation/CC orders constituted an enhancement. | Merricks | Merricks | Clarification did not constitute illegal enhancement |
| Procedural bar on challenging monitoring costs for indigence claim. | Merricks | State | Procedurally barred; not raised in motion |
| Oral pronouncement vs written sentence on electronic monitoring costs. | Merricks | State | Oral pronouncement required; no such pronouncement; discrepancy cognizable under 3.800(a) |
| Effect of discrepancy on final affirmance and ability to seek relief. | Merricks | State | Affirmance without prejudice to a future 3.800(a) challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Lippman v. State, 633 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1994) (clarification not automatic enhancement; case law on sentencing scope)
- Berchin v. State, 938 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (contrast to Lippman; factual context for clarification outcomes)
- Brooks v. State, 649 So.2d 329 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (monitoring costs must be orally pronounced)
- Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600 (Fla. 2007) (discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written sentence cognizable)
- Baker v. State, 789 So.2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (probation cannot be revoked for nonpayment absent willfulness and ability to pay)
- Hamilton v. State, 875 So.2d 586 (Fla. 2004) (indigence and ability to pay relevant to costs)