JOHNATHAN APONTE-VELEZ
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.
The appellate court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentences but reversed a $100 public defender fee. The court found the fee was improperly imposed without notice of the defendant's right to a hearing to contest it, certifying conflict with other district courts on this issue.
Yes, the trial court erred in imposing the $100 public defender fee without providing notice of the defendant's right to a hearing to contest it. The judgments and sentences are affirmed, but the fee is reversed and remanded to be stricken.
[1] A trial court must provide notice of the right to a hearing to contest a public defender fee, even when the fee amount is the statutory minimum mandated by section 938.29…
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 intelligence“We affirm his judgments and sentences, but we reverse the $100 public defender fee and remand for it to be stricken because the record shows that the trial court did not give Mr. Aponte-Velez notice of his right to a hearing to contest this fee.”
This quote states the court's ultimate decision on the convictions and the public defender fee.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnathan Aponte-Velez was convicted of drug possession and resisting an officer. The trial court imposed a $100 public defender fee at sentencing wit…
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 Right To Notice And Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge. Mr. Johnathan Aponte-Velez appeals his judgments and sentences for possession of cocaine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and resisting an officer without violence. We affirm his judgments and sentences, but we reverse the $100 public defender fee and remand for it to be stricken because the record shows that the
- 2 - trial court did not give Mr. Aponte-Velez notice of his right to a hearing to contest this fee. While this appeal was pending, Mr. Aponte-Velez filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).
He argued that, pursuant to Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), the trial court erred in imposing a $100 public defender fee without offering him an opportunity to object to the fee or to request a hearing. After the time limit for judicial action on the rule 3.800(b)(2) motion had expired, the motion was deemed denied. Mr. Aponte-Velez is correct that Newton, 262 So. 3d at 849-50, held that the trial court erred in imposing a $100 fee for the services of court-appointed conflict counsel where the court failed to notify the appellant of his right to a hearing to contest the fee when pronouncing its imposition at sentencing.
In Newton, 262 So. 3d at 850, this court certified conflict with the First District's decision in Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d 984, 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), which held that the $100 fee is the minimum amount mandated by section 938.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2018), and therefore, it is "binding on the court and the defendant alike, [and] no hearing is necessary or appropriate." Cf. Alexis v. State, 211 So. 3d 81, 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (holding that "[b]ecause these fees are statutorily mandated, notice and a hearing are not required before imposition of the minimum amount," but such are required if the amount of the fee exceeds the statutory minimum).
In accordance with Newton, we reverse the $100 public defender fee and remand for it to be stricken because the record shows that the trial court did not give Mr. Aponte-Velez notice of his right to a hearing to contest this fee. As this court did in
- 3 - Newton, 262 So. 3d at 850, we certify conflict with the First District's decision in Mills. We also certify conflict with Alexis, 211 So. 3d 81. Judgments and sentences affirmed; case remanded to strike public defender fee; conflict certified. SILBERMAN and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Geraldo Alexis v. State, 211 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)