Spear v. State
109 So. 3d 232
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- En banc rehearing granted to address whether the $20 Crime Stoppers court cost under §938.06(1), Florida Statutes (2010 version), is mandatory upon conviction regardless of fines.
- Pre-2010 version imposed $20 as an additional surcharge on any fine; courts had held error when no fine was imposed or when a fine was wrongly imposed.
- 2010 amendment reframed the $20 cost as a mandatory cost upon conviction, not merely a surcharge on a fine.
- State subsequently conceded error in seven Pruitt decisions arising under the pre-amendment framework and struck the $20 cost when no fine was imposed.
- One day after Pruitt, Sanders dicta suggested the 2010 amendment made the $20 cost mandatory upon conviction, even without a fine.
- Court now recedes from Pruitt, agrees with Sanders, and holds the $20 cost must be imposed upon conviction regardless of whether a fine is imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2010 amendment makes the $20 cost mandatory on conviction | State argues the cost is mandatory upon conviction | Defendant argues pre- amendment interpretation should apply | Yes, mandatory upon conviction regardless of fines |
| Effect of Pruitt decisions after the 2010 amendment | Pruitt correctly addressed pre-amendment language | Pruitt remains valid under post-amendment law | Recede from Pruitt; Sanders interpretation controls |
| Impact of Sanders dicta on statutory interpretation | Sanders suggests the amendment rendered the cost mandatory | Sanders dicta is persuasive but not controlling | Sanders interpretation adopted; cost mandatory upon conviction |
| Whether the decision affects ongoing judgments | Judgments should reflect the $20 cost as mandatory | Subject to the same statutory interpretation | Appellant’s judgments and sentences affirmed under new rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. State, 100 So.3d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (pre-2010 practice: $20 could not be charged without a fine)
- Chamblee v. State, 93 So.3d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (pre- amendment interpretation on fines)
- Clavelle v. State, 80 So.3d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (pre- amendment issues with $20 surcharge)
- Mallory v. State, 70 So.3d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (pre- amendment surcharge on fine)
- Pullam v. State, 55 So.3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (pre- amendment $20 cost decisions)
- Lang v. State, 856 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (earlier formulation of court costs)
- Pruitt v. State, 98 So.3d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (seven consolidated cases addressing 2010 amendment context (struck $20 when no fine))
- Sanders v. State, 101 So.3d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (dicta supporting that 2010 amendment makes cost mandatory)
- State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla. 2012) (acknowledges related adjudication)