Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Thor Harold Bahrman, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee.
In this Anders 1 appeal, we affirm the judgments and sentences imposed upon Appellant by the trial court in two cases below following Appellant's admission to violating his probation (“VOP”) in each case. We also affirm the judgment and sentence imposed in a third case after Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to the charged offenses in that case. However, we remand for the correction of errors in the final judgments assessing costs in the two VOP cases and to correct the singular order of revocation of probation entered to include both lower court case numbers.
The cost judgment entered in each VOP case reassessed the sums of $100 for the cost of prosecution, $100 for the cost of indigency defense, a $50 public defender's application fee, and $100 investigative costs that had been imposed when Appellant was first sentenced. We direct the trial court to amend the VOP cost judgment in each case to delete these duplicative costs. See Anderson v. State, 380 So. 3d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024) (citing Chivese v. State, 295 So. 3d 324, 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)).
Second, as to the costs specifically assessed in the VOP cases, the trial court ordered Appellant to pay the sum of $100 in each case for the public defender's application fee. On remand, the trial court is directed to correct these cost judgments to instead show the sum of $50 being assessed in each case for this application fee. See § 27.52(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“An applicant shall pay a $50 application fee to the clerk for each application for court-appointed counsel filed.”).
Third, the singular order of revocation of probation entered inadvertently failed to include both VOP case numbers, which we direct be corrected on remand.
Affirmed; Remanded with directions to the trial court to issue amended cost judgments and a corrected order of revocation of probation consistent with this opinion.
FOOTNOTES
1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Per Curiam.
Jay, C.J., and Lambert and Harris, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Case No. 5D2025-0423
Decided: July 03, 2025
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)