Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
CHANDLER RICHARD LEOMBRUNO vs STATE OF FLORIDA
Date: 03-16-2021
Case Number: 20-1009
Judge: Edward C. LaRose
Court: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
Plaintiff's Attorney: Ashley Moody, Attorney General
Defendant's Attorney:
Free National Lawyer Directory
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
In this Anders1 appeal, Chandler Richard Leombruno appeals his
judgments and sentences in seven cases. We affirm in all respects but note that a
possible unpreserved sentencing error may exist in one of the written judgments for
fines and costs.
1Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).- 2 -
The written judgment for fines and costs for case number 18-CF-13870
reflects a $200 county laboratory fee. But the trial court orally ordered $100 for that fee.
The trial court specifically asked, "So the lab[oratory] fees, there's . . . a $100 on
1813870. There's just one $100, but it's on Counts III and IV. Right?"; the State
confirmed the trial court's assumption.
Laboratory fees are typically discretionary, see Kennedy v. State, 701 So.
2d 634, 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), and must be orally pronounced, see Thomas v. State,
190 So. 3d 222, 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Accordingly, there is a possible sentencing
error regarding the trial court's assessment of a $200 laboratory fee where it orally
imposed $100. See id. ("[A] review of the record reveals a possible sentencing error
concerning the court's assessment of $100 in sheriff's investigative costs . . . as the
court did not orally pronounce the discretionary cost at the sentencing hearing."); see
also Wilcox v. State, 674 So. 2d 191, 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (remanding for the trial
court to correct the amount in written order to comport with the amount it orally imposed
at the plea hearing).
Because Mr. Leombruno failed to preserve this potential error by objecting
or filing a motion to correct sentencing error, we must affirm. See R.L.F. v. State, 228
So. 3d 633, 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (affirming without prejudice where the defendant
failed to properly preserve the sentencing error). Our affirmance is without prejudice for
Mr. Leombruno to seek postconviction relief, if possible. See id.
Lakeland, FL - Criminal defense attorney represented Chandler Richard Leombruno with appeals his judgments and sentences.
In this Anders1 appeal, Chandler Richard Leombruno appeals his
judgments and sentences in seven cases. We affirm in all respects but note that a
possible unpreserved sentencing error may exist in one of the written judgments for
fines and costs.
1Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).- 2 -
The written judgment for fines and costs for case number 18-CF-13870
reflects a $200 county laboratory fee. But the trial court orally ordered $100 for that fee.
The trial court specifically asked, "So the lab[oratory] fees, there's . . . a $100 on
1813870. There's just one $100, but it's on Counts III and IV. Right?"; the State
confirmed the trial court's assumption.
Laboratory fees are typically discretionary, see Kennedy v. State, 701 So.
2d 634, 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), and must be orally pronounced, see Thomas v. State,
190 So. 3d 222, 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Accordingly, there is a possible sentencing
error regarding the trial court's assessment of a $200 laboratory fee where it orally
imposed $100. See id. ("[A] review of the record reveals a possible sentencing error
concerning the court's assessment of $100 in sheriff's investigative costs . . . as the
court did not orally pronounce the discretionary cost at the sentencing hearing."); see
also Wilcox v. State, 674 So. 2d 191, 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (remanding for the trial
court to correct the amount in written order to comport with the amount it orally imposed
at the plea hearing).
Because Mr. Leombruno failed to preserve this potential error by objecting
or filing a motion to correct sentencing error, we must affirm. See R.L.F. v. State, 228
So. 3d 633, 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (affirming without prejudice where the defendant
failed to properly preserve the sentencing error). Our affirmance is without prejudice for
Mr. Leombruno to seek postconviction relief, if possible. See id.
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of CHANDLER RICHARD LEOMBRUNO vs STATE OF FLORIDA?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard CHANDLER RICHARD LEOMBRUNO vs STATE OF FLORIDA?
This case was heard in IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT, FL. The presiding judge was Edward C. LaRose.
Who were the attorneys in CHANDLER RICHARD LEOMBRUNO vs STATE OF FLORIDA?
Plaintiff's attorney: Ashley Moody, Attorney General. Defendant's attorney: Free National Lawyer Directory OR Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You..
When was CHANDLER RICHARD LEOMBRUNO vs STATE OF FLORIDA decided?
This case was decided on March 16, 2021.