NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JEFFREY S. WILLIAMS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D14-2393 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 2, 2016.

A ppeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Keith Meyer, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Terrence E. Kehoe, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy, A ssistant Attorney General, Tampa, for A ppellee.

BADALAMENTI, Judge. Jeffrey Williams appeals his jury conviction for aggravated abu se of a disabled adult and the imposition of a $333 discretionary fine and 5 percent surcharge.- 2 - We reverse in part and remand with instructions for the circuit court to strike the discretionary fine pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statute s (2011), and the five percent surcharge purs uant to section 938.04, Florida Statutes (2011), totaling $333.

We do so because the circuit c ourt failed to orally pronounce t his discretionary statutory fine and surcharge at the sentencing hearing. We affirm all ot her issues raised by

Williams without comment. On April 21, 2014, Williams was adjudicated guilty of aggravate d abuse of a disabled adult and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. A t sentencing the circuit court orally pronounced the imposition of an aggregate fine of $1002. It is unclear, however, precisely how the circuit court derived that aggregate amount. Importantly, though, the circuit court made no mention of the discretionary statutory fine and surcharge being challenged here. A few weeks later, the circui t court entered the written Judgment for Fines and Costs, where it then became clea r that the $1002 aggregate fine was, in part, made up of a discretionary fine an d 5 percent surcharge, totaling $333. Williams thereafter properly preserved a challenge to the impos ition of that $333 fine and 5 percent surcharge by filing a motion to correct sentencing error, arguing in that motion, as he does here, that the discretionary statuto ry fine and surcharge should be struck because the circuit court neglected to specify them in its oral pronouncement. Dadds v. State, 946 So. 2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)). Although the State agreed with the m erits of the motion, the circuit court nonetheless denied Williams's request to correct that error.- 3 - A fine imposed pursuant to section 775.083 is discretionary and must be orally pronounced. Dadds, 948 So. 2d at 1130; see also Lamorea ux v. State, 88 So. 3d 379, 381 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ("A d iscretionary fine imposed and the statutory surcharge on the fine must be stricken if the discretionary fine was not orally pronounced at sentencing." (citing Pullam v. State, 55 So. 3d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011))). Because the trial court did not make that oral pronouncement at the sentencing hearing, the discretionary fine and 5 percent surcharge totaling $333 ca nnot stand. We thus reverse the $333 fine and surcharge and remand with directions that they be stricken. Dadds, 948 So. 2d at 1130. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded with directions to strike the $333 discretionary fine and 5 percent surcharge.

SILBERMAN and BLACK, JJ., Concur.