OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY
APPELLATE DIVISION
MATHEW PHILLIP ADAMS,
Appellant,
vs.
Appeal No. CRC 01-07119
CFANO
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_________________________________/
Appeal
from Order of Pinellas County Traffic Court
County Magistrate Herbert Langford
Charles Perry, Esq.
Attorney for Appellant
Robert J. Surette, Esq.
Assistant City Attorney
Attorney for Appellee
THIS
MATTER is before the Court on the defendant’s appeal from the traffic
court’s order imposing fines and costs in the amount of $110.00 and suspending
the defendant’s driver license for two months.
After reviewing the briefs and record, this court affirms the traffic
court’s decision.
On February 9, 2001, the defendant
was charged with violation of a traffic control device pursuant to Sec. 316.074
Fla. Stat. The defendant pled not
guilty and a non-jury trial was held March 20, 2001 before Magistrate Herbert
Langford. At the trial’s conclusion,
the defendant was found guilty. The
magistrate ordered the defendant to pay $110.00 in fines and costs, ordered
the defendant to attend a driver improvement course, and suspended the defendant’s
driver license for two months.
The defendant appeals the amount
of the fine and costs and the suspension of his driver license for two months
arguing that the penalties imposed exceed those proscribed by law. The defendant
argues that the maximum monetary penalty that the magistrate could have imposed
pursuant to Sec. 318.18 Fla. Stat. is $70. The defendant also argues that the magistrate’s
action in suspending the defendant’s license for two months was an erroneous
enhancement and an ex post facto
penalty.
Sec. 316.074 Fla. Stat. provides
in pertinent part:
316.074 Obedience to and required
traffic control devices.—
(1) The driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of an
official traffic control device applicable thereto, placed in accordance
with the provisions of this chapter, unless otherwise directed by a
police officer, subject to the exceptions granted the driver of
an authorized emergency vehicle in this chapter.
(6) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction,
punishable as a moving violation as provided in chapter 318.
Sec. 318.14(4) Fla. Stat. cited
by the defendant provides in pertinent part:
Any person charged with a noncriminal infraction under
this section who does not elect to appear shall pay the civil penalty and
delinquent fee, if applicable, either by mail or in person, within 30 days
after the date of receiving the citation.
Sec. 318.18 Fla. Stat. Amount of civil penalties, provides in pertinent part:
The penalties required for a noncriminal disposition pursuant to s. 318.14 are as
follows:
(3)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, $60 for all
moving violations not requiring a mandatory appearance.
(11)(a) Court costs that are to be in addition to the stated fine
shall be imposed by the court in an amount not less than the following:
For moving traffic infractions . . . . . . . $10.
Thus, defendant claims the total amount of fines and costs that could have been
imposed is $70. However, Sec. 318.14(4) is inapplicable because the defendant elected to appear before the Court. Instead, Sec. 318.14(5) applies and the fine imposed is not restricted to the amounts provided under Sec. 318.18.
Sec. 318.14(5) Fla. Stat. provides in pertinent part:
Any person electing to appear before the designated official . . . shall
be deemed to have waived his or her right to the civil penalty provisions
of s. 318.18. The official, after a hearing, shall make a determination
as to whether an infraction has been committed. If the commission
of an infraction has been proven, the official may impose a civil
penalty not to exceed $500 . . . or require attendance at a driver
improvement school, or both.
Because the defendant elected
to appear before the magistrate and the commission of an infraction was proven,
we find that the magistrate was empowered to impose not only a fine of $110.00,
but a fine as high as $500.00.
We now turn to the defendant’s
claim that the magistrate’s action in suspending his driver license for two
months was an erroneous enhancement and an ex post facto penalty. The
record on appeal indicates that the defendant has committed numerous traffic
violations in both Pinellas and Hillsborough County within the past three
years. Sec. 316.655(2) Fla. Stat.
provides in pertinent part:
Drivers convicted of a violation of any offense prohibited by this
chapter or any other law of this state regulating motor vehicles
may have their driving privileges revoked or suspended by the
court if the court finds such revocation or suspension warranted by
the totality of the circumstances resulting in the conviction and
the need to provide for the maximum safety for all persons who travel
on or who are otherwise affected by the use of the highways of the state.
Accordingly, we find that the
magistrate did not commit error by suspending the defendant’s driver license
for two months.
It is therefore
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the traffic court’s order imposing $110.00 in
fines and costs and suspending the defendant’s driving privileges for two
months is affirmed.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida this 9th day
of January, 2002.
|
__________________________ NANCY MOATE LEY Circuit Judge
___________________________ W. DOUGLAS BAIRD Circuit Judge
___________________________ R. TIMOTHY PETERS Circuit Judge |
Copies
furnished to:
Magistrate
Herbert Langford
Charles
Perry, Esq.
1100
Cleveland Street, Suite 900
Clearwater,
FL 33755
Robert
J. Surette, Esq.
Assistant
City Attorney
City
of Clearwater
645
Pierce Street
Clearwater,
FL 33756