L. E. S.

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

BLACK, Judge.

In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), L.E.S. challenges the order adjudicating him delinquent for two counts of attempted burglary of an unoccupied conveyance and placing him on probation.

The trial court also ordered him to pay a public defender fee in the amount of $100 pursuant to section 938.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2019), among other fees and costs.

We affirm the adjudicatory and disposition order in all respects and write only to address counsel's assertion that the trial court erred in ordering L.E.S. to pay the $100 public defender fee without providing him notice and an opportunity to be heard on the amount of the fee. While this appeal was pending, L.E.S. filed a motion in the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2), asserting that the public defender fee had been imposed in violation of Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849, 849–50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), which held that it was reversible error for a trial court to impose the minimum public defender fee required by section 938.29(1)(a) without notifying the defendant of his or her right to a hearing to contest the fee.

The trial court did not rule on the motion within the time prescribed by rule 8.135(b)(1)(B), so it was deemed denied. In the Anders brief, counsel contends that the trial court erred in denying the rule 8.135(b)(2) motion. See Hamiter v. State, 290 So. 3d 1003, 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (stating that counsel may challenge a trial court's denial of a motion to correct minor sentencing errors, such as errors concerning costs and fees, in an Anders "no merit" brief).

In light of recent precedent on this issue, we disagree. The supreme court recently reviewed this court's decision in J.A.R. v. State, 45 Fla.

L. Weekly D2361, D2362 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 16, 2020), which relied upon Newton and held in pertinent part that the trial court erred in imposing the statutorily required minimum public defender fee of $100 for felony cases without notifying J.A.R. of his right to contest the fee. See State v. J.A.R, 46 Fla.

L. Weekly

S157a, S157a (Fla. June 3, 2021).

The holding of this court's J.A.R. decision was contrary to decisions from the Fourth and First Districts. See Alexis v. State, 211 So. 3d 81, 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (holding that because the minimum public defender fee of $100 for each felony case is mandated by statute, "notice and a hearing are not required before imposition of the minimum amount" (citing Odom v. State, 187 So. 3d 324, 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016))); Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d 984, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (en banc) (holding that notice and a hearing are not necessary before the imposition of the minimum public defender fee mandated by section 938.29(1)(a) for felony cases).

The supreme court quashed this court's J.A.R. decision and approved the decisions of the Fourth and First Districts, holding as follows: [B]y its plain language, section 938.29(1)(a) does not afford a defendant the right to contest the amount of the public defender fee when . . . the trial court imposes the minimum amount required by the statute. Under these circumstances, the trial court is not required to announce the imposition of the fee at sentencing or notify the defendant of the right to a hearing to contest the fee. J.A.R, 46 Fla.

L. Weekly at S157a.

Because the trial court imposed the statutorily required minimum fee of $100 in this case, it was "not required to announce the imposition of the fee at sentencing or notify [L.E.S.] of the right to a hearing to contest the fee." See id.

Therefore, the adjudicatory and disposition order is affirmed.

Affirmed. KELLY and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.