ROBERT G. THORPE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction for concealing a child contrary to court order but vacated the imposition of court costs and attorney's fees against the indigent defendant for lack of proper notice and hearing.
A trial court may assess court costs and attorney's fees against an indigent defendant only after providing adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, as required by section 27.56(7), Florida Statutes.
[1] A trial court must provide an indigent defendant with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before assessing court costs and attorney's fees under section 27.56(…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Thorpe was convicted of concealing a child contrary to court order in violation of section 787.04, Florida Statutes. The trial court imposed co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice And Hearing Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We find no merit in appellant’s contention that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over this matter, and thus we affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence for concealing a child contrary to court order, a violation of section 787.04, Florida Statutes (1988).
We agree with appellant’s assertion, however, that the trial court improperly imposed court costs and attorney’s fees against appellant for his defense by the public defender.
Section 27.56(1), Florida Statutes (1983), authorizes assessment of the challenged costs and fees against an indigent defendant after compliance with the notice and hearing requirements specified in section 27.56(7). Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947, 950 (Fla.1984); Shaffer v. State, 446 So. 2d 1156, 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Anderson v. State, 415 So. 2d 49, 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). See also Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720(d)(1). Our review of the record discloses that the trial court ordered payment of these costs without affording appellant adequate notice and an opportunity to object to the court’s determination.
Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the final judgment imposing these assessments and remand for proper consideration of this matter.
We affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence in a11 other respects.
RYDER, C.J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Zdenka Slomovic v. McLOON, 415 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Anderson v. State, 415 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Shaffer v. State, 446 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)