Court Opinion

ID: 9961551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 12:04:37.594108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:55.492266
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
                       SECOND DISTRICT

                     DANIEL ALBERT LOMBARDI,

                                Appellant,

                                    v.

                            STATE OF FLORIDA,

                                Appellee.

                             No. 2D2023-0552

                              April 19, 2024

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.140 from the County Court for
Pinellas County; Cathy A. McKyton, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Caroline Joan S. Picart,
Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laura Dempsey,
Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.
     Daniel Albert Lombardi appeals his judgments and sentences
across multiple case numbers. On appeal, Lombardi argues that the
trial court erred by imposing lump sum court costs and fines. The State
properly concedes error.1

     1 Lombardi preserved this issue for review by filing a motion to

correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.800(b)(2) during the pendency of this appeal. The motion was deemed
     A written order imposing court costs must cite the statute
authorizing each cost regardless of whether it is mandatory or
discretionary. See Weber v. State, 368 So. 3d 487, 489 (Fla. 2d DCA
2023) (citing Vick v. State, 37 So. 3d 951, 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)).2 In
this case, the written sentencing order in each case number imposed
either $350 or $400 lump sum fines and court costs without citing to
any statutory authority. And although the plea agreement states that
Lombardi agrees that he "will be assessed all statutory fines and costs"
and will "pay all fines and costs, including the fines and costs checked
on the attached sheets," there are no attached sheets with checked fines
and costs in the record on appeal, and the plea agreement does not
otherwise specify any statutory authority.
     We therefore strike the portions of the sentencing orders imposing
the lump sum fines and court costs. On remand, the trial court may
reimpose the fines and court costs but must provide the statutory
authority for each fine and court cost in the written orders. However, the
trial court will not be required to hold a new sentencing hearing to orally
pronounce discretionary fines and court costs because Lombardi
"agree[d] to pay all fines and costs" and "waive[d his] right to individual
announcement of these costs" as part of his plea agreement. See Spence
v. State, 667 So. 2d 430, 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that when a

denied when the trial court did not issue a timely ruling. See Fla. R.
Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2).
     2 We are aware of the Fifth District's holding that "there is no strict

rule requiring citation to authority in every written cost order even if the
authority is otherwise evident in the record." King v. State, 375 So. 3d
389, 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (citing Brown v. State, 666 So. 2d 240 (Fla.
5th DCA 1996)). But in this case, the statutory authority for the
imposed fines and court costs does not appear anywhere in the record on
appeal.

                                      2
defendant specifically agrees to the imposition of a discretionary fee, cost,
or fine as part of a plea agreement, oral pronouncement is not required
because the defendant waives any objection to its imposition). We affirm
Lombardi's judgments and the remainder of his sentences without
further comment.
      Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

                                      3