Bernie Ray Carroll v. State of Florida (Fla. 5th DCA 2024). · Go Syfert
Bernie Ray Carroll v. State of Florida (Fla. 5th DCA 2024). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for cluster 10099475.
Bernie Ray Carroll
v.
State of Florida
2023-0820.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Aug 30, 2024.
Published
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-0820
LT Case No. 2020-CF-000640-A
_____________________________

BERNIE RAY CARROLL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.
_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County.
James R. Baxley, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan,
Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Bernie Ray Carroll, Century, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D.
Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for
Appellee.

August 30, 2024

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders * appeal, we affirm without comment Bernie Carroll’s convictions and sentences on each of the eight counts for which he was found guilty. However, the law requires that we reverse the trial court’s imposition of the $250 fine and related surcharge on count I.

While Carroll was properly sentenced to life in prison with no hope of parole on count I (sexual battery upon a person under twelve years of age), classified as a capital offense under Florida law, section 775.083(1), Florida Statutes (2018), does not authorize imposition of the $250 fine on this count. See § 775.083(1), Fla. Stat. (“A person who has been convicted of an offense other than a capital felony may be sentenced to pay a fine in addition to any punishment . . . .” (emphasis added)); see also Hare v. State, 687 So. 2d 1371, 1371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

Accordingly, while we affirm the convictions and sentences imposed on each count, we reverse the imposition of the $250 fine and related surcharge on count I. This case is remanded to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment and sentence consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with instructions.

EDWARDS, C.J., and EISNAUGLE and SOUD, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

* See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

[*2]