You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Singletary v. State

Citations: 520 So. 2d 107; 13 Fla. L. Weekly 498; 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 588; 1988 WL 11352Docket: No. 86-2147

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 16, 1988; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves an appeal by Joseph Singletary concerning his sentences for multiple armed robberies and associated offenses. The trial court sentenced Singletary to ten years in state prison, a three-year minimum mandatory term for firearm possession, followed by two years of community control and ten years of probation. Additionally, the court ordered restitution and imposed various costs under Florida Statutes sections 960.20 and 943.25(4). However, the appellate court identified that some costs lacked statutory authority and consequently struck them, while upholding others despite Singletary's failure to object due to indigence. The court referenced a precedent stating that not objecting constitutes a waiver of rights to contest costs. Recognizing a conflict with other jurisdictions on this waiver issue, the appellate court certified the matter for the supreme court's consideration. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's sentencing decisions, except for the unauthorized costs, which were reversed and remanded. The decision saw concurrence from Judges Campbell and Parker, with Judge Schoonover concurring in a separate opinion.

Legal Issues Addressed

Certification of Conflict to Supreme Court

Application: The appellate court acknowledged a jurisdictional conflict regarding the waiver issue and certified the question to the supreme court for resolution.

Reasoning: The appellate court also recognized a conflict with other jurisdictions regarding this waiver issue and certified the question for the supreme court.

Imposition of Court Costs and Restitution

Application: The trial court's imposition of certain costs was struck down due to a lack of statutory authority, while others were upheld despite the defendant's indigent status and lack of objection.

Reasoning: However, certain costs were assessed without statutory authority, leading the appellate court to strike these charges.

Sentencing for Armed Robbery and Related Offenses

Application: The court affirmed the sentences for multiple armed robberies, which included ten years in state prison and additional terms for firearm possession and probation.

Reasoning: The court affirms his convictions and the overall sentences, which include ten years in state prison, a three-year minimum mandatory term for firearm possession, and two years of community control followed by ten years of probation.

Waiver of Right to Contest Costs without Objection

Application: The court upheld costs under specific statutes, citing precedent that failure to object at sentencing waives the right to contest these costs.

Reasoning: The court noted that Singletary, deemed indigent, did not object to the imposition of costs at sentencing. Consequently, the court upheld costs under sections 960.20 and 943.25(4), citing a precedent that a failure to object constitutes a waiver of the right to contest such costs, despite a lack of prior notice.