GREGORY SCOTT GRAHAM, 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 assessment of public defender fees but reversed the assessment of prosecution costs, remanding for further proceedings on the latter.
Gregory Graham appealed his judgment and sentence, including an order assessing public defender fees and costs of prosecution.…
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.
Gregory Graham appeals his judgment and sentence, including an order of probation assessing a public defender’s fee and the costs of prosecution. We affirm Graham’s judgment and sentence, including the assessment of the public defender’s fee. We reverse the assessment of the costs of prosecution and remand for further proceedings.
Graham argues that the trial court erred in assessing the public defender’s fee and the costs of prosecution because the public defender and the State did not make the statutorily required motions for compensation and did not evaluate Graham’s ability to pay.
We affirm the trial court’s sua sponte assessment of $105.00 in public defender fees based on our recent decision in Mounts v. State, 638 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (en banc). However, we remand so the trial court can give Graham an opportunity within 30 days to contest the amount of the assessment. Mounts, 638 So. 2d at 603-604 (citing Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720 and Bull v. State, 548 So. 2d 1103 (Fla.1989)).
When a trial court imposes a judgment for costs of prosecution pursuant to section 939.01(1), Florida Statutes (1991), the state attorney must demonstrate the amount spent on prosecuting the defendant and the trial court must consider the defendant’s financial resources. Smith v. State, 543 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); § 939.01(5) & (6), Fla.Stat. (1991). The trial court erred in ordering Graham to pay $200.00 in prosecution costs without considering the State’s costs of prosecution or Graham’s ability to pay. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s assessment of costs of prosecution and remand with directions to consider the State’s actual costs and Graham’s financial capabilities.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Livingston Winters v. State, 789 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720. Accordingly, we affirm the lower court’s assessment of $100.00 but remand so the trial court can give Appellant an opportunity within thirty days to contest the amount of the assessment. See Graham v. State, 640 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Affirmed and remanded with instructions.…
-
Guadagno v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…nt to section 939.01(1), Florida Statutes (1991) [renumbered section 938.27], the state attorney must demonstrate the amount spent on prosecuting the defendant and the trial court must consider the defendant’s financial resources.” Graham v. State, 640 So. 2d 1166, 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). As the instant appeal involved a felony charge, the trial court was required by statute to impose a minimum of $100 for the cost of prosecution. The state concedes that imposing $200—$100 above the statutory minimum—was…
-
Roytez Leonard Taylor v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…ncurred.” Id. To set a higher amount, “the state attorney must demonstrate the amount spent on prosecuting the defendant and the trial court must consider the defendant’s financial resources.” Guadagno, 291 So. 3d at 963 (quoting Graham v. State, 640 So. 2d 1166, 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)). When a trial court imposes a prosecution cost above the statutory minimum, but sufficient proof is not shown, the cost is stricken. See Bevans, 291 So. 3d at 594. A challenge to the sufficiency of the prosecution cost…
Authorities Cited
- Bull v. State, 548 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1989)
- Davis Smith, Jr. v. State, 543 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Mounts v. State, 638 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)