Doe v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ANTON C. DOE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2D09-543 Opinion filed July 15, 2011. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Richard A. Luce, Judge. James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Robert F. Moeller, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. VILLANTI, Judge. In this Anders1 appeal with preserved sentencing issues,2 Doe seeks review of his convictions and sentences for five counts of attempted robbery with a 1 2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Doe preserved his sentencing issues by filing a timely motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). firearm. We affirm Doe's convictions and sentences without further comment. However, we remand for the trial court to strike one duplicative cost. The record shows that the trial court twice imposed the Indigent Criminal Defense Fee pursuant to section 27.52, Florida Statutes (2009) once in the amount of $50 in the final judgment and sentence that was rendered January 21, 2009, and amended on June 15, 2010, and again in the amount of $40 in a separate "judgment for fine and costs" that was rendered on January 26, 2009. This fee is assessed per application for counsel, see § 27.52(1)(b) (imposing the fee "for each application for court-appointed counsel"), and nothing in the record shows that Doe submitted more than one application for court-appointed counsel. Accordingly, we remand with directions to the court to strike as duplicative the separate "judgment for fine and costs" pursuant to section 27.52 in the amount of $40 rendered January 26, 2009. Affirmed and remanded with directions. WHATLEY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.