236 So. 3d 1159
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Michael Earl Thomas was convicted in six consolidated cases: one trial conviction (armed burglary with firearm, dealing in stolen property, false verification) and five open guilty pleas to burglary, theft, false verification, and dealing in stolen property counts.
- In two cases (1D16-3189 and 1D16-3190), Thomas was adjudicated for both dealing in stolen property and theft based on the same acts: sale of a stolen gas compressor and a stolen lawnmower, respectively.
- The State concedes that the dual adjudications in those two cases derived from a single course of conduct.
- The written judgments in all six cases included: a discretionary fine under section 775.083(1), a surcharge under section 938.04(1), and a Sheriff’s Office Investigative Cost under section 938.27(1).
- The discretionary fine and surcharge were not pronounced at sentencing; the investigative cost was not requested on the record by the law enforcement agency.
- The trial court attempted to rule on postconviction motions outside the 60-day Rule 3.800(b) window; those orders are legally ineffective and are to be stricken on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dual adjudications for theft and dealing in stolen property based on the same conduct are permissible | State concedes error; dual adjudications impermissible when based on single course of conduct | Thomas argued convictions duplicated for same conduct and must be vacated | Court: Dual adjudications impermissible under §812.025; remand for trial court to vacate one adjudication in each case and resentence (exercise of discretion) |
| Whether discretionary fine (§775.083(1)) and surcharge (§938.04(1)) may stand when not pronounced at sentencing | State sought affirmance or reimposition | Thomas argued they must be stricken because they were not orally imposed at sentencing | Court: Fine and surcharge must be stricken; court may reimpose if proper procedure followed on remand |
| Whether Sheriff’s Office Investigative Cost (§938.27(1)) may be imposed absent an on‑record request by the agency | State argued arrest reports show actual cost so fee is proper | Thomas argued statutory requirement that agency request costs was not met | Court: Investigative costs must be stricken and may not be reimposed because statute requires an on‑record agency request |
| Validity of postconviction orders entered outside Rule 3.800(b) 60‑day window | State defended trial court orders | Thomas argued orders were jurisdictionally time‑barred | Court: Orders entered after 60 days are void; directed trial court to strike those orders on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Anucinski v. State, 148 So.3d 106 (Fla. 2014) (single course of conduct bars dual convictions under §812.025)
- Hall v. State, 826 So.2d 268 (Fla. 2002) (trial court discretion in selecting which concurrent adjudication to vacate)
- Carmichael v. State, 192 So.3d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (unpronounced fees/surcharges must be stricken)
- Mills v. State, 177 So.3d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (procedure for reimposing unpronounced financial obligations)
- Vaughn v. State, 65 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (investigative costs require an on‑record agency request under §938.27)
- Williams v. State, 72 So.3d 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (postconviction orders entered after 60‑day Rule 3.800(b) period are without legal effect)
Outcome: Reversed and remanded for the trial court to (1) vacate one adjudication in each duplicated case and resentence, (2) strike unpronounced fines and surcharges (or properly reimpose them), (3) strike investigative costs (not subject to reimposition), and (4) strike untimely postconviction orders.