RAMIREZ v. STATE (2021)

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

Appellant challenges his convictions and sentences, arguing that the trial court erred in making certain evidentiary rulings and in denying his motion to correct a sentencing error filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). We affirm Appellant's convictions and sentences without further comment.

However, we agree with Appellant that the trial court erred in imposing a $700 fine and a $35 surcharge on that fine pursuant to sections 775.083(1) and 938.04, Florida Statutes, in the written judgment when neither the fine nor the surcharge was specifically pronounced during Appellant's sentencing hearing. See Osterhoudt v. State, 214 So. 3d 550, 551 (Fla. 2017) (explaining that due process requires that a trial court individually pronounce discretionary fees, costs, and fines during a sentencing hearing and remanding for resentencing where “the trial court may reimpose the discretionary fine and surcharge after providing notice to Osterhoudt and following the proper procedure”); Johnson v. State, 293 So. 3d 582, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (holding that the trial court erred in imposing a discretionary fine and surcharge without an individual oral pronouncement, reversing and remanding for the trial court to “have an opportunity to orally re-impose the fines, surcharge, and costs, or strike the fines,” and explaining that “[s]hould the trial court strike the fines in an amended judgment, Appellant need not be present”).

Accordingly, we reverse the fine and surcharge and remand for the trial court to have the opportunity to orally re-impose them after providing notice to Appellant and following the proper procedure. If the trial court strikes the fine and surcharge in an amended judgment, Appellant need not be present. See id. at 584–85.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

Per Curiam.

Lewis, Osterhaus, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.