192 So. 3d 1271
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Alvin Mojica appealed his robbery conviction and sentence to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal; the conviction itself was affirmed.
- The appellate court identified scrivener's errors in the judgment and the sentencing scoresheet.
- Judgment incorrectly labeled the offense as a first-degree felony though the conviction was for a second-degree felony.
- The scoresheet incorrectly indicated resolution by plea bargain when Mojica was tried and convicted by a jury.
- The trial court imposed a $125.72 fine and $6.28 surcharge (sections 775.083(1) and 938.04) and an indigent legal assistant assessment of $200 without the required oral pronouncement and notice of the right to a hearing to contest amounts.
- The Second District reversed and remanded to correct the judgment and scoresheet, strike or reimpose the monetary items after proper notice/procedure, and permitted reimposition consistent with statutory and case law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scrivener's error in judgment felony degree | State concedes judgment misstates felony degree and should be corrected to second-degree | Mojica seeks correction to reflect actual conviction | Court ordered amended judgment changing conviction to second-degree felony (Balmori) |
| Scoresheet incorrectly shows plea bargain | State concedes scoresheet error; case was tried and decided by jury | Mojica seeks corrected scoresheet showing jury conviction | Court ordered amended scoresheet showing jury trial (Drayton) |
| Imposition of $125.72 fine and $6.28 surcharge without oral pronouncement/notice | State concedes trial court failed required oral announcement and notice of right to hearing | Mojica argues fines/surcharge must be stricken absent proper procedure | Court struck the fine and surcharge; remand allows reimposition only after proper oral pronouncement and notice (Reyes; Cruz; Nix) |
| Indigent legal assistant assessment above $100 imposed without notice | State argues assessment proper under §938.29 | Mojica argues excess over $100 is discretionary and requires notice of right to contest | Court held assessment over $100 improperly imposed without notice; permitted reimposition after notice or entry of $100 minimum assessment (Harmon; Nash) |
Key Cases Cited
- Balmori v. State, 924 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (amend judgment to correct felony degree)
- Drayton v. State, 89 So. 3d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (correct scoresheet to reflect jury conviction)
- Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (trial court must orally announce fines/surcharge and identify statutory authority and right to hearing)
- Cruz v. State, 830 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (failure to follow pronouncement/notice procedure requires striking fine/surcharge)
- Nix v. State, 84 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (procedural requirements for fines/surcharges and assessments)
- Harmon v. State, 160 So. 3d 939 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (assessments above $100 are discretionary and require notice of right to contest)
- Nash v. State, 958 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (notice/pronouncement requirement for legal assistance assessment)
- Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (discussing appropriate remedial entries when assessments improperly imposed)
- Swift v. State, 53 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA) (historical discussion of §938.29 assessment authority)