MELISSA HENRIQUEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve claims that a trial court violated Jenkins v. State by imposing costs on an indigent defendant without proper notice and hearing. The Court held that no objection is required and remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal standard.
A contemporaneous objection is not required to preserve Jenkins error for appeal. Failure to object does not constitute a waiver of the right to challenge the imposition of costs on appeal.
[1] A contemporaneous objection is not required to preserve for appellate review the propriety of imposing costs on an indigent defendant at a sentencing hearing without the…
[2] Failure to object to the imposition of court costs and a public defender's lien at sentencing does not constitute a waiver of the right to raise the issue of lack of noti…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a contemporaneous objection is not required to preserve Jenkins error for appeal”
States the core holding that no objection is necessary to preserve claims of improper cost imposition without notice and hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMelissa Henriquez was convicted of three counts of petit theft. At sentencing, the trial court informed her of its intent to impose court costs and a …
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 Waiver Of Appellate Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Melissa Henriquez petitions this Court to review the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Henriquez v. State, 513 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). As the second district court acknowledged, its holding is in direct and express conflict with Outar v. State, 508 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Henriquez, 513 So. 2d at 1286. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Henriquez was convicted of three counts of petit theft. At sentencing, the trial court informed Henriquez of its intent to impose court costs and a public defender’s lien for the use of that office’s services. At that point, the trial court asked Henri-quez’ attorney, the assistant public defender, for an opinion as to the amount of an appropriate fee. The judge then imposed a lien on Henriquez for that amount. Henri-quez did not object to the lien at that time. On appeal, Henriquez argued that she was not given adequate notice and hearing to respond to the imposition of the lien and court costs. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). The district court held that because Henriquez did not object to the lien and costs, she had waived her right to raise the issue of lack of notice and hearing on appeal. The court acknowledged that this holding conflicted with the fifth district court’s opinion in Outar, which held that failure to comply with Jenkins is fundamental error. Henriquez, 513 So. 2d at 1286.
The Second District Court of Appeal recently certified to us the question of whether a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve Jenkins error for appeal. Barker v. State, 518 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Wood v. State, 519 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).* We have accepted jurisdiction in Wood and we have answered the certified question in the negative, holding that a contemporaneous objection is not required. Wood v. State, 544 So. 2d 1004 (Fla.1989). Thus, we cannot say that Hen-riquez’ failure to object to the imposition of costs constitutes a waiver of that issue. Accordingly, we quash the opinion of the second district and remand this case to that court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ„ concur. *
The second district court phrased the question in the following manner:
WHETHER A CONTEMPORANEOUS OBJECTION IS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE FOR APPELLATE REVIEW THE PROPRIETY OF IMPOSING COSTS ON AN INDIGENT DE-
FENDANT AT A SENTENCING HEARING WITHOUT THE PRIOR NOTICE REQUIRED
BY Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). Barker v. State, 518 So. 2d 450, 452 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). See also Wood v. State, 519 So. 2d 730, 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)…715 So. 2d at 962. Prior to the Act, this Court considered the imposition of discretionary costs without notice and an opportunity to object to be fundamental error because it violated due process. See Wood, 544 So. 2d at 1006; Henriquez v. State, 545 So. 2d 1340, 1341 (Fla.1989). The district courts appear to be in accord, however, that unpreserved issues relating to any imposition of costs or public defender’s liens should no longer be considered correctable on appeal. See, e.g., Maddox, 708 So. 2d at 620;…
-
Wood v. State, 544 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1989)…of Appeal in Wood v. State, 519 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The court in that case certified to this Court the same question it had certified in Barker v. State, 518 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We also review this issue in Henriquez v. State, 545 So. 2d 1340 (Fla.1989). The certified question before us asks: WHETHER A CONTEMPORANEOUS OBJECTION IS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE FOR APPELLATE REVIEW THE PROPRIETY OF IMPOSING COSTS ON AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT AT A SENTENCING HEARING WITHOUT THE PRIOR NOTICE REQUIRED…
-
Neal v. State, 688 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…to order a criminal defendant to pay attorney fees without affording adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, which may be raised for the first time on appeal notwithstanding failure to raise the issue in the trial court. Henriquez v. State, 545 So. 2d 1340 (Fla.1989) (citing Wood v. State, 544 So. 2d 1004 (Fla.1989)). Accordingly, by the express language of section 924.051(3), this issue may be raised, notwithstanding the fact that it was never presented to the trial court. Because the trial court or…
Previewing 3 of 17 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)
- Wood v. State, 544 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1989)
- Outar v. State, 508 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Henriquez v. State, 513 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Barker v. State, 518 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Wood v. State, 519 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)