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.

Fernandez v. State

Citations: 906 So. 2d 353; 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10826; 2005 WL 1645743Docket: No. 2D04-1809

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; July 13, 2005; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

William Fernandez appeals his judgment and sentence for grand theft. The appeal, filed under Anders v. California, raises several issues, but the only merit found by the court relates to the imposition of a $150 cost for the court improvement fund as mandated by section 939.18, Florida Statutes (2003). The court determined that the trial court failed to consider Fernandez's financial ability to pay this cost, which is required by law. As a result, the court affirmed Fernandez’s judgment and sentence in all other respects but reversed the portion imposing the $150 cost. The case is remanded for the trial court to either strike this cost from the sentence or, after conducting the necessary inquiry regarding Fernandez's ability to pay, potentially reimpose it. The decision is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, with Judges Casanova and Salcines concurring.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affirmation of Judgment and Sentence

Application: The appellate court affirms the trial court's judgment and sentence in all respects except for the imposition of the court improvement fund cost.

Reasoning: The court affirmed Fernandez’s judgment and sentence in all other respects but reversed the portion imposing the $150 cost.

Imposition of Court Costs under Florida Statutes Section 939.18

Application: The trial court must consider the defendant's financial ability to pay before imposing a court cost under section 939.18.

Reasoning: The court determined that the trial court failed to consider Fernandez's financial ability to pay this cost, which is required by law.

Remand for Reconsideration of Court Costs

Application: The appellate court directs the trial court to either strike the $150 cost from the sentence or reassess it after evaluating the defendant's ability to pay.

Reasoning: The case is remanded for the trial court to either strike this cost from the sentence or, after conducting the necessary inquiry regarding Fernandez's ability to pay, potentially reimpose it.