HARRY A. ROCKER, 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.
Harry Rocker appealed the imposition of court costs and fees assessed following his guilty plea, arguing they were imposed on a per-count rather than per-case basis and that he lacked adequate notice and an ability-to-pay determination. The appellate court reversed the trial court on the per-count/per-case issue, striking duplicative costs, but affirmed the conviction and rejected his other arguments.
The court held that sections 960.20, 943.25, and 27.3455 mandate per-case rather than per-count cost assessments, and the duplicative costs must be stricken. However, notice and a hearing on ability to pay were unnecessary where fees and costs were part of the plea agreement to which the defendant stipulated.
[1] Costs imposed pursuant to sections 960.20, 943.25, and 27.3455, Florida Statutes, must be assessed on a per case basis, not on a per count basis.
[2] A defendant who agrees to the amount of public defender's lien and court costs as part of a plea agreement waives the right to notice and a hearing on those costs.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the clear language of section 27.3455(1) mandates that costs are to be imposed per case and not per count”
Establishes the legal standard for statutory interpretation of cost assessment provisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing his plea, the trial court imposed costs and fees pursuant to Florida Statutes sections 960.20, 943.25, and 27.3455. Rocker challenged the as…
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.
GOSHORN, Judge.
Upon consideration of appellee’s motion for rehearing, we withdraw our opinion issued May 13, 1994 and issue the following opinion in its stead.
In this criminal appeal, Harry A. Rocker raises several issues regarding the fees and costs assessed following his plea. First, he argues that the trial court erred by imposing costs pursuant to sections 960.20, 943.25 and 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1991) on a per count, rather than a per case basis. This court has squarely addressed the issue of section 27.3455 fees in Hollingsworth v. State, 632 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). In Hollingsworth, we reversed the trial court and held that the clear language of section 27.3455(1) mandates that costs are to be imposed per case and not per count. Applying a similar analysis to section 960.20 and section 943.25, we hold that those costs likewise must be imposed per ease and not per count. Accordingly, the duplicative costs are stricken.
We reject, however, Rocker’s remaining points on appeal. Rocker asserts that he was not given adequate notice to dispute the amount of the public defender’s hen and local court costs, and further, that the court was required to determine his ability to pay the court costs before their imposition. However, the record reflects that the fees and costs were part of his plea agreement, and thus, notice and a hearing were unnecessary. See Aira v. State, 583 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (finding that it is proper to impose a public defender’s hen without notice or an opportunity to be heard where defendant stipulated to the amount of the fee), quashed on other grounds, 593 So. 2d 1049 (Fla.1992).
As corrected, Rocker’s judgment of conviction is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sang Van Nguyen v. State, 655 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…reflected by the transcript of the hearing. We reverse the orders in that case imposing charges, costs and fees on a per count basis. On remand, the trial court is directed to impose the charges, costs and fees on a per case basis. Rocker v. State, 640 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Also on remand, the trial court shall cite the statutory authority relied on as support for any award of charges, costs or fees. Finally, while the trial court properly reserved jurisdiction to consider restitution in circuit…
-
Hunter v. State, 651 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…l)(a), at 405, Laws of Fla. Turning next to the question of whether the court erred by exacting the costs on a per-count rather than a per-case theory, appellant cites Hollingsworth v. State, 632 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), and Rocker v. State, 640 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), which hold that costs levied under sections 960.20, 943.25 and 27.3455 must be imposed on a per-case basis. See also Wallace v. State, 637 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Spruill v. State, 643 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). T…
-
Faulk v. State, 661 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…a. 2d DCA 1994). The $425.00 assessment imposed pursuant to section 27.3455(1), Florida Statutes (1993), must also be stricken, because that statute limits costs for the commission of a felony to $200.00 per ease, not per count. See Rocker v. State, 640 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Hollingsworth v. State, 632 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Accordingly, we strike the above cited costs and remand for reimposition in accordance with the law. All other costs are statutorily mandated and are affirmed. RYDE…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hollingsworth v. State, 632 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Aira v. State, 593 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Walker, 593 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1992)
- Aira v. State, 583 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)