DANIEL EDWARD ROWE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Daniel Rowe appeals the imposition of $25 in costs and 50 hours of community service, arguing he was denied adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before costs were assessed. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal quashes both the costs and community service, holding that defendants are entitled to notice and a hearing prior to cost imposition, and remands for proper reassessment.
A defendant, whether indigent or not, is entitled to adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the imposition of costs. Additionally, the trial court lacked authority to impose community service in lieu of costs under section 27.3455. The imposition of costs and community service are quashed and the case is remanded for reassessment of costs under all applicable sections with proper notice and hearing.
[1] A court must determine a defendant's indigency at the time of sentencing to properly apply Section 27.3455, Florida Statutes, which requires community service in lieu of…
[2] Imposition of court costs under Section 27.3455, Florida Statutes, requires adequate notice to the defendant and a full opportunity to object.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“There is no constitutional bar to advising an indigent defendant that he may be required to repay the costs of appointed counsel and to collecting those costs at some later time if the defendant becomes solvent.”
Establishes that costs can be imposed on indigent defendants, but with conditions regarding enforcement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniel Edward Rowe was sentenced and assessed $25 in costs under sections 960.20 and 943.25 without adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. Addit…
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 Community Service In Lieu Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL, Chief Judge.
Daniel Edward Rowe appeals from that portion of his judgment and sentence which imposed $25 costs under sections 960.20 and 943.25 without adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard and the imposition of 50 hours of community service in lieu of $200 costs under section 27.3455 (Supp.1988). We quash the imposition of costs and community service and remand to the trial court for assessment of costs under all three sections after notice and hearing in accordance with Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1988).
The state argues this court should adopt the federal rationale regarding assessment of costs as contained in United States v. Cooper, 870 F. 2d 586 (11th Cir.1989); United States v. Rivera-Velez, 839 F. 2d 8 (1st Cir.1988) and United States v. Pagan, 785 F. 2d 378 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1017, 107 S.Ct. 667, 93 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986). In those eases, the courts held that a mandatory $50 assessment against an indigent defendant is not unconstitutional until the government seeks to enforce collection at a time when the defendant is unable, through no fault of his own, to comply. It is at the time of enforcement that the indigent, faced by the alternatives of payment or imprisonment, may assert a constitutional objection on the grounds of his indigency.
However, the above cases do not involve the issue of adequate notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the imposition of costs, but whether costs may be imposed upon an indigent defendant. On this latter issue, our Florida Supreme Court has already stated that “There is no constitutional bar to advising an indigent defendant that he may be required to repay the costs of appointed counsel and to collecting those costs at some later time if the defendant becomes solvent.” Bull v. State, 548 So. 2d 1103, 1105 (Fla.1989). In addition, the Florida Supreme Court went on to say in Bull:
Further, contrary to petitioner’s argument, we see no conflict with Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984), where we held that notice and an opportunity to be heard must be given and a judicial determination made that the defendant is able to pay before repayment is enforced. Notice and an opportunity to be heard have been afforded, and enforcement of the lien will require a civil action during which petitioner may show an inability to repay the debt.
548 So. 2d at 1105.
Thus, it is clear that a defendant, whether he be indigent or not, is entitled to adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the imposition of costs. Later, upon enforcement, he may not be forced to pay those costs if he can show an inability to pay them.
Finally, the state concedes that the court was without authority to impose community service in lieu of costs under section 27.3455. Accordingly, the imposition of costs and community control are quashed and the case remanded for the reimposition of costs under all three sections after adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard has been given. See Nash v. State, 552 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
Costs and community service QUASHED; REMANDED.
GOSHORN, J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs in conclusion only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Williamson v. State, 569 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…opportunity to be heard, and that the remaining costs were never ordered by the trial court at the sentencing hearing. Because a defendant is entitled to adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the imposition of costs, Rowe v. State, 558 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), we remand for reimposition of costs after Williamson is afforded adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the instant ease to the trial court to reduce Williamson’s probation on counts…
-
Westley Hostzclaw v. State, 561 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…ot implicate a constitutional defense against the imposition of costs and fees vis-a-vis his ability to pay. It is only at the time such costs and/or fees are attempted to be collected that constitutional protections may arise. Contra Rowe v. State, 558 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). We have certified this question in Beasley v. State, No. 89-2188 (Fla. 4th DCA May 23, 1990). Accordingly, we reverse the imposition of fees and costs against appellant and remand for further action consistent with this opinion…
-
Magalene Price v. State, 620 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…upp.1986). Accordingly, we reverse the imposition of community service in lieu of court costs and remand the case to the trial court for the determination of costs after giving appellant adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Rowe v. State, 558 So. 2d 174, 175 (Fla. 5th DCA1990). REVERSED AND REMANDED. GUNTHER, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1988)
- Bull v. State, 548 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1989)
- Gill v. United States, 479 U.S. 1017 (U.S. 1986)
- Smith v. United States, 479 U.S. 1017 (U.S. 1986)
- United States v. Pagan, 785 F.2d 378 (2d Cir. 1986)
- United States v. Cooper, 870 F.2d 586 (11th Cir. 1989)
- United States v. José Rivera-Velez, 839 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1988)
- Thomas v. State, 552 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)