EDGAR DARLING, 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.
The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the order for public defender fees and extradition costs, remanding for a new sentencing hearing.
Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced via closed-circuit television and ordered to pay public defe…
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 Public Defender Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s conviction of possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. The record shows that when appellant changed his plea from not guilty to nolo contendere, he did not reserve the right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. See Hoff v. State, 466 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1985).
Appellant argues, and the state concedes, that appellant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the trial court sentenced him without his presence in court. Appellant viewed his sentencing through closed circuit television. Pursuant to Jacobs v. State, 567 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), we remand for a new sentencing hearing to afford appellant the opportunity to confer with his counsel privately and to have the benefit of counsel’s advice. Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.180(a)(19). Since appellant will be afforded a new sentencing hearing, we find that appellant’s point regarding the special conditions of probation imposed at sentencing is moot.
We also hold that the trial court erred when it ordered appellant to pay public defender fees and extradition costs without affording him adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. See Sallette v. State, 553 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); see also Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1988) and Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order that appellant pay a public defender fee and extradition costs.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stone v. State, 642 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…ce at the hearing of its imposition, and he made no objection. Thus, the extradition costs were properly assessed against Stone. See Dickson v. State, 622 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (defendant assessed for costs of extradition); Darling v. State, 577 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), citing Sallette v. State, 553 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1988); and Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). Finally, while the other costs were properly assessed, Stone was assessed…
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1988)
- Hasan Jones v. State, 567 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Cas. Indem. Exch. v. Deep SEA, Inc., 553 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Hoff v. State, 466 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)