Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

495 So. 2d 868

495 So.2d 868

11 Fla.L.Weekly 2173

Docket No. 85-1816.

Bowman v. State

Richard Lee BOWMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 8, 1986.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1986-10-08

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 1987 · most notably 506 So. 2d 45 - Sescon v. State (1987), 504 So. 2d 473 - Amison v. State (1987)

33 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“DOES THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 27.3455, FLORIDA STATUTES (1985), TO CRIMES COMMITTED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE STATUTE VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, OR DOES THE STATUTE MERELY EFFECT A PROCEDURAL CHANGE AS IS PERMITTED UNDER STATE V. JACKSON, 478 So.2d 1054 (FLA. 1985)?”

quoted by 6 later decisions, including 503 So. 2d 1378 - Frazier v. State, 499 So. 2d 28 - Fitte v. State

“When any person pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, or is found guilty of, any felony, misdemeanor, or criminal traffic offense under the laws of this state or the violation of any municipal or county ordinance which adopts by reference any misdemeanor under state law, there shall be imposed as a cost in the case, in addition to any other cost required to be imposed by law, a sum in accordance with the following schedule: (a) Felonies.$200.00 (b) Misdemeanors.$ 50.00 (c)Criminal traffic offenses ... $ 50.00 All applicable fees and court costs shall be paid in full prior to the granting of any gain-time accrued. However, the court shall sentence those persons whom it determines to be indigent to a term of community service in lieu of the costs prescribed in this section; and such indigent person shall serve the term of community service at the termination of incarceration. Each hour of community service shall be credited against the additional cost imposed by the court at a rate equivalent to the minimum wage.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 503 So. 2d 1378 - Frazier v. State

Relies on 478 So. 2d 1054 - State v. Jackson · 489 So. 2d 131 - Yost v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-10-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and A. Anne Owens, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Candance M. Sunderland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

¶3DANAHY, Chief Judge.

¶4The defendant challenges that part of his sentence which imposes court costs of $200 and then requires the defendant to perform community service work in lieu of the court costs because the defendant is indigent.

¶5Section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), became effective July 1, 1985. It permits the imposition of court costs in the amount of $200 and further permits a trial court to sentence a person whom it determines to be indigent to a term of community service in lieu of the costs prescribed in that section.

¶6Although the defendant was sentenced after the effective date of the statute, the crimes for which he was being punished were committed prior to its effective date. The defendant's first issue on appeal is that the application of the statute in sentencing for a crime committed prior to the effective date of the statute violates the ex post facto provisions of the constitutions of the United States and of the State of Florida. The same issue was raised in Yost v. State, 489 So.2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). In that case our sister court agreed with the ex post facto argument, but certified the question as follows:

DOES THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 27.3455, FLORIDA STATUTES (1985) TO CRIMES COMMITTED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE STATUTE VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, OR DOES THE STATUTE MERELY EFFECT A PROCEDURAL CHANGE AS IS PERMITTED UNDER STATE v. JACKSON, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)?

¶7We agree with the decision in Yost v. State and reverse that portion of the judgment in this case imposing court costs of $200. We also certify the above question to the Supreme Court of Florida as a question of great public importance.

¶8SCHOONOVER and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.

/495/so2d/868 · .json · Public domain