Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

DAVID HARVEY BOOTH, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged and convicted under the narcotic laws of the State of Florida. He appeals his judgment and sentence, presenting three points on appeal. We find no merit in points one and three. However, point two is well taken.

Appellant, an indigent, was sentenced to the maximum of five years in prison and $5,000 fine. The sentence also provided that if appellant failed to pay the fine he would have to serve an additional year in prison.

In this court's recent opinion in Dunn v. State, 247 So.2d 26, filed April 14, 1971, we held that under the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970), a sentence as imposed against an indigent in the case sub judice is improper and must be modified.

Accordingly, that portion of the sentence which provides that if appellant fails to pay the $5,000 fine he must serve an additional year in prison is vacated. In all other respects the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

Affirmed as modified.

LILES, Acting C.J., and HOBSON and MANN, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BOOTH v. STATE
(Apr 14, 1971)