Cioni v. State
Cioni v. State
Opinion of the Court
Thomas Cioni raises two issues on appeal. First, he argues that the trial court erred by requiring him to pay excessive attorney’s fees. Second, he argues that the trial court erred when it sentenced him on a charge which had been nolle prossed by the state. We affirm, but remand for correction of a scrivener’s error.
Initially, the state charged Cioni with burglary of a dwelling,
After reviewing the record we conclude that Cioni did not preserve the attorney’s fee issue. To preserve the issue for appeal, Cioni was required to request a hearing before the trial court within 30 days of his sentencing. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.720(d)(1), (2). Here, Cioni waited more than five months after filing his notice of appeal before objecting to the attorneys’ fees. The issue cannot now be considered on appeal. Hill v. State, 734 So.2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
As to the second issue, the state concedes there is a scrivener’s error. We remand for the purpose of correcting the error. Cioni need not be present. Mosco v. State, 640 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
AFFIRM sentence; REMAND to correct scrivener’s error.
. § 810.02(3), Fla. Stat. (1991).
. § 812.014(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (1999).
.§ 843.02, Fla. Stat. (1991).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.