Petition for Writ of Mandamus—Original Jurisdiction.
February 26, 2025
PER CURIAM.
The Court grants Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus.
On June 19, 2015, Petitioner pleaded guilty and wassentenced as to count 1 a $50,000.00 fine. No fine wasadministered for the remainder of the counts but the order alsoimposed a $519 mandatory court cost and a $2,500.00 surcharge.However, in 2018, Petitioner’s probation was revoked, and he wasresentenced with the lower court failing to re-impose the finereducing Petitioner’s prior financial obligations to a lien.Thereafter on appeal, this Court reversed and remanded becausethe record failed to show if a violation of probation affidavit wasfiled. The trial court on remand entered an order vacating theviolation of probation and the order regarding the civil liens.
Original opinion page 2
2Petitioner was restored to probation. As well, the circuit courtissued an order vacating the final judgment for fines, cost, andadditional charges.In September of 2020, petitioner filed a Motion to Correct FineAmounts, which the trial court denied as moot because the lienwas vacated.More recently, in 2023, the trial court found Petitioner inviolation of some of the conditions of his probation and resentencedhim without imposing a fine, only $100 for cost of prosecution,which was reduced to a civil lien. Thus, the only lien againstPetitioner is the $100.00 cost of prosecution imposed in 2023. Thecircuit court clerk’s response to this Court’s order indicates fines,surcharges, and prosecution costs exceeding $100,000 effectiveJune 19, 2015.In accordance with the lower tribunal orders vacating thosefines and charges, this Court directs the lower tribunal clerk tocorrect their records to reflect the lower tribunal’s vacation of the2015 liens and charges against Petitioner in case 2014-CF-000840C and to show no other costs to Petitioner beyond the $100cost of prosecution imposed in 2023.B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur._____________________________Not final until disposition of any timely andauthorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or9.331._____________________________Jeffrey H. McElwain, pro se, Petitioner.James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Opinion text and original PDF from Florida First District Court of Appeal · Source opinion