SCOTT ADAM CANALE, A/K/A ADAM SCOTT CANALE, 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 the trial court erred in departing from sentencing guidelines without written reasons and in imposing costs and a public defender's lien without proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
The defendant appealed his sentence, costs, and liens imposed by the trial court. The trial court orally departed from sentencing guidelines without w…
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 Public Defender'S Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
Defendant appeals from his sentence and the imposition of costs and liens.
The trial court orally departed from the sentencing guidelines. No written reasons were provided, and the oral reasons were clearly insufficient under the case law. We therefore reverse and remand for resentencing within the guidelines recommended sentencing range. The defendant asserts that the imposition of a public defender’s lien was error because he was given no notice or opportunity to be heard. The affidavit of insolvency signed by the defendant, in which he consented to the imposition of such a lien, states that the defendant “shall have the opportunity to be heard, and offer objections to the determination of the value of the services of the public defender and costs, at the time of the final disposition of [defendant’s] case....” The record shows that the valuation of the lien and the imposition of the costs and the lien were accomplished subsequent to the final disposition and shows no such opportunity having been afforded defendant. This was error. See Foust v. State, 478 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
The assessment of costs against defendant under sections 27.3455, 960.20 and 943.-25(4), Florida Statutes (1985), was also accomplished without the required notice to the defendant. See Lawton v. State, 492 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Burrow v. State, 487 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
We reverse the imposition of the costs and liens and remand for a hearing in accordance with Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984), on the valuation and imposition of the public defender’s lien and the imposition of costs if such costs and lien are to be again sought.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1988)…04 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (question certified but not brought to this Court for review). Several district courts have applied the rationale of Jenkins to section 27.3445 costs. E.g. Gaskin v. State, 513 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Canale v. State, 509 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Harris v. State, 507 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We agree that due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to assessment of costs under section 27.3455. The due process concerns addressed by this Court…
-
Phelan A. Little v. State, 519 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…agree, that remand for a hearing in compliance with Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984), is necessary in the absence of a record disclosing that such obligations were imposed following notice and an opportunity to be heard. Canale v. State, 509 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Sescon v. State, 506 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Little’s final contention challenges the revocation of his probation. Little was sentenced to a three year probationary term on February 25, 1983. On July 15, 1983 Little was p…
-
Barron v. State, 524 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…he determination of value of the services of the public defender and costs.” The record nowhere reflects that Barron was afforded such an opportunity prior to the entry of the final judgment assessing fees and costs. This was error. Canale v. State, 509 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Therefore, we vacate Barron’s judgment of conviction for grand theft, together with the final judgment assessing fees and costs, and remand for a hearing in accordance with Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). CAMPBEL…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Bethune v. State, 492 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Lawton v. State, 492 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Burrow v. State, 487 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Foust v. State, 478 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)