CALVIN RHODES, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court held that statutorily mandated and fixed costs may be imposed on convicted indigent defendants without special notice or a separate hearing beyond sentencing, satisfying procedural due process under the two-part test from Jenkins v. State.
Statutorily mandated and fixed costs may be imposed on convicted indigent criminal defendants without affording them special notice or a hearing separate from the sentencing hearing, satisfying procedural due process.
[1] Imposition of statutorily mandated and fixed costs on indigent criminal defendants without special notice or separate hearing satisfies procedural due process under the two-part test from Jenkins v. …
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 intelligenceRhodes was sentenced and mandatory costs of $225 were imposed against him without objection at his sentencing hearing.…
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 Notice And Hearing Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Judge.
We have for review Rhodes v. State, 566 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), which certified the following question as being of great public importance:
WHETHER BULL V STATE, 548 SO.2D 1103 (FLA.1989), STANDS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT STATUTORILY MANDATED AND FIXED COSTS MAY BE IMPOSED ON CONVICTED INDIGENT CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS WITHOUT AFFORDING THEM SPECIAL NOTICE OR A HEARING SEPARATE FROM THE SENTENCING HEARING.
Id. at 594. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. At Rhodes’ sentencing hearing, mandatory costs in the amount of $225 were imposed against him without objection. The district court affirmed and certified the above question. We addressed the due process concerns inherent in the question in State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla.1991). In Beasley, we held that the imposition of costs upon an indigent criminal defendant under this type of factual situation satisfies the two-part procedural due process test delineated in Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984).
In accordance with our decision in Beasley, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the decision of the district court.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trombley v. State, 754 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…fine would be imposed for the DUI with serious injures, the agreement does note under the maximum sentence, “guidelines/$5,000.00 fine.” The costs imposed are statutory costs for which the statute provides the requisite notice. See Rhodes v. State, 580 So. 2d 159 (Fla.1991). As to these issues, Trombley failed to preserve them for review on appeal. When the fine and costs were announced at sentencing, Trombley did not object nor did he later move to withdraw his plea. See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat.; Fla.App.…
-
V.M.B. v. State, 652 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…) by imposing attorney’s fees against the parents of an adjudicated juvenile, and (2) by imposing statutorily mandated costs against the parents. We find no merit in the argument of error in regard to statutorily mandated costs. See Rhodes v. State, 580 So. 2d 159 (Fla.1991). We do, however, find that the court failed to give the appellant adequate notice of her right to a hearing to contest the amount assessed for the assistance of the public defender as required by [*985] section 27.56(7), Florida Statutes,…
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1991)
- Smith v. State, 566 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)