RYAN CHARLES MORALES
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 reversed the imposition of a public defender fee because the trial court failed to strike the fee after granting the defendant's motion to do so. The court affirmed the judgment and sentences in all other respects.
Yes, the trial court erred. Because the trial court granted the motion to strike the fee but did not explicitly strike it, the appellate court reversed the imposition of the fee.
[1] When a trial court grants a defendant's motion to strike a public defender fee, the court must explicitly strike the fee in its order and provide the defendant with notic…
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“Because the trial court's order does not explicitly strike the fee, we reverse the imposition of the public defender fee and remand to the trial court with instructions to strike the fee and afford Morales the opportunity to properly object to the amount imposed.”
This quote explains the court's decision to reverse the imposition of 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 intelligenceRyan Charles Morales was convicted of driving with a suspended license and possession of heroin. The trial court imposed a $100 public defender fee wi…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.720(D)(1) cases and more on FLexlaw
SLEET, Judge. Ryan Charles Morales appeals his judgment for costs and fines that, in pertinent part, imposes a $100 fee for the services of the public defender's office. Although the trial court granted Morales' motion to strike the public defender fee and provide him notice of right to contest the fee, the trial court failed to strike the fee.
- 2 - Because the trial court's order does not explicitly strike the fee, we reverse the imposition of the public defender fee and remand to the trial court with instructions to strike the fee and afford Morales the opportunity to properly object to the amount imposed.
We affirm Morales' judgment and sentences in all other respects.
On December 13, 2018, Morales pled no contest to one count of driving with license suspended or revoked (third or more conviction) and one count of possession of heroin.
The trial court accepted Morales' plea and adjudicated him guilty.
The trial court imposed a $100 public defender fee without providing Morales notice of his right to contest the fee pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1).
On January 7, 2019, Morales filed a timely pro se notice of appeal. Although Morales did not object at sentencing, he properly preserved the issue for review by filing a timely rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to strike the $100 public defender fee or, alternatively, give him notice of the right to contest the fee.
On August 26, 2019, the trial court issued an order "granting" the motion and noted that "if [Morales] wishes to have a hearing on the subject, he must file the appropriate motion." In the event a trial court imposes a public defender fee on a defendant, the trial court must provide the defendant with notice of his right to contest the fee at a hearing. Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849, 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). Here, Morales has challenged the judgment of a $100 fee imposed for the services of the public defender.
The trial court's failure to strike the fee or to provide Morales with a hearing date to contest the amount of the fee was error.
Accordingly, because the trial court's order grants Morales' rule 3.800(b)(2) motion and does not explicitly strike the fee, we reverse the imposition of
- 3 - the public defender fee and remand to the trial court with instructions to strike the fee and afford Morales the opportunity to contest the fee amount. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. KELLY and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.