A Florida appellate court recently ruled on the case of Correll Johnson, who was convicted of sexually abusing a child. The court reversed part of the conviction related to the imposition of fines, while affirming the conviction on one count. This decision could have significant implications for how discretionary fines are handled in similar cases.
Correll Johnson, the appellant in this case, was sentenced to life in prison after being convicted on four counts of sexually abusing a child. The trial court also imposed fines totaling just over $3,000. Johnson appealed the decision, raising concerns about how the fines were imposed and the validity of one of his convictions.
The dispute centers around the trial court's handling of discretionary fines. Johnson argued that the trial court did not follow proper procedures when imposing these fines. Specifically, he claimed that the court failed to individually pronounce each fine, which is required by law. Johnson referenced a previous case, Johnson v. State, 293 So. 3d 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020), which established that a defendant's waiver of a reading of the statutory authority for discretionary fines does not absolve the court of its responsibility to individually pronounce each fine.
The case reached the District Court of Appeal of Florida after Johnson filed his appeal following the trial court's decision. The appeal focused on two main issues: the imposition of fines and the validity of one of the charges against him.
In its ruling on April 8, 2021, the court agreed with Johnson regarding the fines. The court stated, "Because the trial court was tasked with individually pronouncing each discretionary fine to be imposed, we agree with Appellant that the trial court’s imposition of fines must be reversed." This decision emphasizes the importance of following proper legal procedures when imposing fines in criminal cases.
However, the court did not side with Johnson on the second issue regarding the charge of Lewd and Lascivious Molestation. Johnson argued that this charge could not be considered a lesser included offense of the Sexual Battery charge he faced. The court found that this issue was not preserved for appeal, meaning Johnson did not raise the objection properly during the trial. The court noted, "Even if no specific words are required, it must be clear that the trial court was aware of an objection being logged."
The ruling was made by a panel of judges, including Judges Jay, M.K. Thomas, and Nordby, who all concurred with the decision. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence regarding count one, which involved the Lewd and Lascivious Molestation charge, while reversing the part related to the imposition of fines.
This ruling has important implications for future cases involving discretionary fines in Florida. It reinforces the requirement that trial courts must follow specific procedures when imposing fines, ensuring that defendants are fully informed of the fines being imposed and the statutory authority behind them. This decision may lead to more careful handling of fines in criminal cases, potentially affecting many defendants in the state.
As for what happens next, Johnson's case could potentially be appealed further, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any plans for additional appeals. The ruling also does not appear to be related to any other pending cases at this time.