TIMOTHY PRICE PIRTLE
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 in part and reversed in part a misdemeanor battery conviction. It reversed the imposition of $220 in unidentified court costs due to lack of statutory authority cited, but affirmed a $50 fee for court-appointed counsel.
The court held that the trial court erred in imposing the $220 in unidentified court costs because the statutory authority was not cited. However, it held that no notice or hearing was required for the $50 court-appointed counsel fee.
[1] All costs imposed in a sentencing order, whether mandatory or discretionary, must be supported by citation to proper statutory authority in the written order.
[2] A defendant has no right to notice or a hearing to contest the imposition of the minimum $50 court-appointed counsel fee required under Florida Statute section 938.29(1)(…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 these mysterious "court costs" were neither discussed at the sentencing hearing nor cited in the subsequent sentencing order, we too are unable to discern the bases for requiring $220 in court costs.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for reversing the imposition of $220 in court costs.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTimothy Price Pirtle appealed his misdemeanor battery judgment and sentence. He had filed a motion to correct sentencing errors, arguing the trial cou…
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 Hearing Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
LABRIT, Judge. Timothy Price Pirtle appeals his judgment and sentence for misdemeanor battery. We reverse and remand to correct one minor sentencing error but otherwise affirm.
While this appeal was pending, Mr. Pirtle filed a motion to correct two minor sentencing errors under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). He argued that the trial court erroneously imposed a $50 fee for court-appointed counsel without giving him notice and an opportunity to be heard. He also claimed the trial court erred by including $220 of unidentified "court costs" in the sentencing order. This motion was effectively denied when the time limit for judicial action passed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B). Mr. Pirtle now argues that the denial of this rule 3.800(b)(2) motion was error. To the extent Mr. Pirtle's motion sought redress for the $220 in "court costs," we agree. Because these mysterious "court costs" were neither discussed at the sentencing hearing nor cited in the subsequent sentencing order, we too are unable to discern the bases for requiring $220 in court costs. See Vick v. State, 37 So. 3d 951, 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ("The statutory authority for all costs imposed, whether they are mandatory or discretionary, must be cited in the written order.").
However, we find no error with the trial court's imposition of the $50 court-appointed counsel fee. As recent supreme court precedent shows, Mr. Pirtle has no right to notice or a hearing to contest the $50 court-appointed counsel fee. See State v. J.A.R., 46 Fla.
L. Weekly S157, S158 (Fla. June 3, 2021) ("Notably, section 938.29(1)(a) does not require the trial court to announce the imposition of the statutorily required fee; nor does it afford the defendant any substantive right to contest the fee. And, no other portion of section 938.29 requires notice and a hearing when the court imposes the minimum fee required under subsection (1)(a).").
Accordingly, we reverse the imposition of $220 court costs but affirm the $50 court-appointed counsel fee. On remand, the trial court shall strike the $220 in court costs from the sentencing order and correct the probation order to reflect these changes. See Haddock v. State, 255 So. 3d 994, 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018); Vick, 37 So. 3d at 952. That said, the trial court may reimpose these court costs if it cites proper statutory authority. See Vick, 37 So. 3d at 952.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. KHOUZAM and LUCAS, JJ., Concur. - 2 - Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Vick v. State, 37 So. 3d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Kristopher Haddock v. State, 255 So. 3d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)