GEORGE TRICE, 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 held that the habitual felony offender sentencing was proper, but orders imposing fees for court-appointed counsel and restitution must be reversed due to procedural errors.
[1] A trial court's failure to make requisite findings of fact under the habitual felony offender statute is harmless error when the state presents unrebutted evidence warran…
[2] A defendant must be afforded an opportunity to object to the amount of court-appointed attorney's fees assessed.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge Trice pleaded nolo contendere to three counts of armed robbery and appealed his sentencing. The trial court imposed habitual felony offender se…
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 Restitution Award cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
George Trice seeks review of sentencing issues in connection with his plea of nolo contendere to three counts of armed robbery. We affirm his habitual felony offender sentencing, but reverse the trial court’s orders imposing fees for court-appointed counsel and restitution. Where the state has introduced unre-butted evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions, the court’s failure to make the requisite findings of fact required by section 775.084(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), is harmless error. Herrington v. State, 643 So. 2d 1078 (Fla.1994); State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1993). Because the unrebut-ted evidence here warrants sentencing under the habitual felony offender statute, any error is harmless.
We agree, however, with the appellant that the order imposing attorney’s fees pursuant to section 27.56(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), must be reversed because the fees were assessed without affording him the opportunity to object to the amount of the assessment. See Wilson v. State, 651 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Farmer v. State, 617 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Bourque v. State, 595 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). On remand, Mr. Trice shall have thirty days from the date of the mandate within which to file a written objection to the amount assessed. If an objection is filed with the trial court, the assessment shall be stricken and a new assessment shall not be imposed without notice and hearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1).
The appellant is also correct concerning the lack of notice or opportunity to be heard on the amount of the restitution award. See Massie v. State, 635 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Winbom v. State, 625 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). We, therefore, reverse the restitution award and remand for a new restitution hearing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
BLUE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Iaconetti v. State, 869 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…amount of restitution. See also Exilorme v. State, 857 So. 2d 339, 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Allen v. State, 718 So. 2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The defendant is entitled to notice of this hearing and an opportunity to be heard. Trice v. State, 655 So. 2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). It is reversible error to impose restitution without notice or hearing. Exilorme, 857 So. 2d at 340. It is also reversible error to impose restitution in the absence of any evidence as to the amount of restitution properly…
-
Adonia Hillary King v. State, 696 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…osts cited in the judgment. Accordingly, the F.D.L.E. costs must be stricken. The court also erred in imposing the $300 public defender fee. Appellant was not given the opportunity to object to the amount of the fee. This was error. Trice v. State, 655 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). On remand, appellant shall be given thirty days from the date of the mandate to file a written objection to the amount assessed. If an objection is filed with the trial court, the assessment shall be stricken and a new assessment…
-
Armstrong v. State, 696 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ructions that Armstrong be given thirty days to file a written objection to the amount of the lien. If she files an objection, the lower court must strike the lien, and it may not impose a new assessment without notice and a hearing. Trice v. State, 655 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Bourque v. State, 595 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Conviction affirmed, costs stricken, remanded for further proceedings concerning the imposition of costs and the public defender’s fee. DANAHY, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J.,…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1993)
- Bourque v. State, 595 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Herrington v. State, 643 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 1994)
- Winborn v. State, 625 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Farmer v. State, 617 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Wilson v. State, 651 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Massie v. State, 635 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)