CALVIN SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1993-09-17
No. 93-02736
RYDER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
623 So. 2d 1242 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1993) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that while the appellant may be entitled to relief if he did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding court-appointed counsel fees, the motion was procedurally deficient.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant Calvin Smith appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence and a motion to dismiss a lien for court-appointed counsel fee…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Calvin Smith appeals the denial of a motion to correct illegal sentence and an un-sworn “motion to dismiss” court-appointed counsel’s lien for fees. We affirm.

The only allegation of merit is appellant’s claim that he did not receive prior notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the assessment of court-appointed counsel’s fees. If true, appellant would be entitled to relief. See Townsend v. State, 604 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Smiley v. State, 590 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Buiey v. State, 583 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The trial court denied relief, erroneously holding that appellant was not entitled to notice and hearing. The trial court should have denied relief without prejudice on the basis that the motion did not satisfy the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.1 Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief without prejudice to appellant filing a motion pursuant to rule 3.850.

RYDER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur. . This court and others have previously considered matters of costs imposed against indigent defendants on appeals from denials of motions to correct sentence. See Riddell v. State, 509 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Maxwell v. State, 492 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Haynes v. State, 486 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In a situation such as the instant case, however, in which a procedural notice requirement is contested, the defendant is required to set forth a sworn factual basis. See Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 613 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1992).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Johnson v. State, 646 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
    …ant that the imposition of attorney’s fees was improper because the appellant failed to receive prior notice and an opportunity to be heard with regard to those fees, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1). See Smith v. State, 623 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Townsend v. State, 604 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Accordingly, we strike the imposition of attorney’s fees without prejudice to the trial court’s reimposing them on remand after compliance with rule 3.720(d)(1). See Burke v…
  • Whitehurst v. State, 647 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
    …affirm the denial of both motions. The only claim that may have merit is the appellant’s assertion that he failed to receive prior notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the public defender’s fees assessed against him. See Smith v. State, 623 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Townsend v. State, 604 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The trial court denied relief without ruling on the merits of this allegation. As in Smith, the trial court should have denied relief without prejudice to the. appellant filin…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw