J. W.
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
J.W. appeals a juvenile delinquency disposition order that finds him guilty of burglary and petit theft, withholds adjudication, and places him on probation with certain fees. The appellate court affirms the disposition but reverses and strikes the $100 public defender fee due to lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard, and remands for possible reinstatement after proper procedures.
The court struck the $100 public defender fee because the trial court failed to provide notice of the right to a hearing before imposing it, but the fee may be reimposed after proper notice and opportunity to be heard. The $150 prosecution cost was not preserved for appellate review because J.W. did not object at sentencing.
[1] A trial court must provide notice of the right to a hearing to contest a public defender fee when imposing such a fee.
[2] Failure to provide notice of the right to a hearing to contest a public defender fee requires striking the fee.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We strike the $100 fee because the trial court failed to give J.W. notice of his right to a hearing to contest the fee when it was imposed at sentencing.”
Establishes the core holding that the public defender fee must be struck due to lack of proper notice and hearing opportunity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.W. was found to have committed delinquent acts of burglary of a dwelling and petit theft. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a $100 public defen…
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 Juvenile Delinquency Disposition cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge. J.W. appeals from the disposition order that finds he committed the delinquent acts of burglary of a dwelling and petit theft, withholds an adjudication of delinquency, and places him on probation. We affirm the disposition order without
elaboration, but we reverse the order, in part, which imposes $100 for the services of the public defender under sections 985.033 and 939.29, Florida Statutes (2018).
J.W. filed a motion to correct disposition order under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2) challenging the public defender fee. The motion was deemed denied upon the expiration of time for judicial action. We strike the $100 fee because the trial court failed to give J.W. notice of his right to a hearing to contest the fee when it was imposed at sentencing. See § 939.29(5); Davis v. State, 286 So. 3d 898, 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849, 849-50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).
The court may reimpose the $100 public defender fee after proper notice and the opportunity for J.W. to be heard on that issue. See Gedehomme v. State, 160 So. 3d 533, 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); Neal v. State, 62 So. 3d 1277, 1277-78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
In his motion, J.W. also challenged the imposition of $150 for the cost of prosecution.
However, because J.W. did not object when the cost was announced at sentencing, the matter was waived for appellate review. See Rivera v. State, 34 So. 3d 207, 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding that a motion to correct sentencing error will not preserve the imposition of prosecution costs for appellate review where the trial court orally pronounces the cost and no objection was raised).
Accordingly, we affirm the disposition order but strike the $100 public defender fee and remand for further proceedings.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. BADALAMENTI and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
- Neal v. State, 62 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)