CLARENCE SCOTT, 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.
The court held that a $5,000 cost figure imposed as a condition of probation was arbitrary and must be determined based on actual costs, and that attorney's fees and costs assessed without proper notice and hearing must be stricken.
The defendant was convicted of possession of heroin and placed on probation. As a condition of probation, the court imposed $5,000 in court costs and …
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
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
The defendant appeals from his conviction of possession of heroin. We hold that the court properly denied his motion to suppress and his motion for discharge under the speedy trial rule. However, there are two points concerning costs which must be addressed. The court placed the defendant on probation but over objection imposed as a special condition the requirement that he pay $5,000 court costs on a reasonable monthly basis within the term of the probation. The supreme court has held that even a presently indigent defendant can be required to repay court costs as a condition of probation. State v. Byrd, 378 So. 2d 1231 (Fla.1979). The problem here is that the $5,000 figure appears to have been determined without regard to actual costs or any estimate thereof. In Smith v. State, 401 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), our sister court reversed a cost judgment which was set as an arbitrary figure. Although the condition to pay costs in this case does not appear to have been imposed under the same statute, we believe that the' figure of $5,000 suffers from the same deficiency.
We also find that the final judgment assessing the defendant $300 in attorney’s fees and costs for representation by the public defender was entered in violation of the notice and hearing requirements of section 27.56(7), Florida Statutes (1983). Drumm v. State, 432 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
The defendant’s convictions are affirmed. We strike the condition requiring the payment of $5,000 costs and remand for a determination of actual costs. We also strike the $300 judgment for attorney’s fees and costs without prejudice to reassess these costs upon proper notice and hearing.
OTT and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Porter Hankerson v. State, 464 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…ordingly, we strike each provision assessing the $1,000 payment and remand for a determination of actual costs after considering those costs allowed by law and upon due notice and hearing. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984); Scott v. State, 459 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Drumm v. State, 432 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We also find that in each judgment appellant was ordered to pay $15 pursuant to section 960.20 (Crimes Compensation Trust Fund) and $2 pursuant to section 943.25(4) (Law Enforce…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Arsoreda Byrd, 378 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 1979)
- Drumm v. State, 432 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Smith v. State, 401 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)