EARNEST BRANDON, 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.
Earnest Brandon appeals his conviction for robbery with a weapon. The appellate court affirmed his conviction but reversed two sentencing errors: an improper probation condition requiring absolute employment within 90 days and an attorney's fee imposed without notice or opportunity to be heard.
The court affirmed Brandon's conviction but held that the employment condition was improper because courts cannot require absolute employment by a certain date absent a showing of ability to do so, and the attorney's fee was improper because it was imposed without notice or hearing. The probation condition must be modified, and the fee must be struck with opportunity for reimposition after notice and hearing.
[1] A public defender's lien may not be imposed without providing the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard.
[2] A trial court errs by assessing a public defender's lien without advising the defendant of their right to a hearing to contest the proposed amount.
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“While the trial court has the authority to require a probationer to make a good faith effort to seek gainful employment within a specified period of time as a special condition of probation, it cannot require a probationer absolutely to obtain employment by a certain date or to maintain certain employment, absent a showing of his or her ability to do so.”
Establishes the permissible scope of probation conditions regarding employment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrandon was convicted of robbery with a weapon. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a probation condition requiring Brandon to obtain employment wi…
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.
Earnest Raja Brandon (Brandon) challenges his judgment and sentence for robbery with a weapon. His appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). After reviewing the record, we agree with his counsel that there are no meritorious issues for appeal except for two errors made during sentencing. Specifically, the trial court erred in imposing a probation condition, which requires Brandon to obtain employment within ninety days of his release from prison. While the trial court has the authority to require a probationer to make a good faith effort to seek gainful employment within a specified period of time as a special condition of probation, it cannot require a probationer absolutely to obtain employment by a certain date or to maintain certain employment, absent a showing of his or her ability to do so. Vezina v. State, 644 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Evans v. State, 608 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In addition, the trial court erred in assessing $625 for the services of the public defender where it failed to consider this fee at the sentencing hearing, and failed to give Brandon notice of the amount of the fee imposed or notice of the right to a hearing to contest that amount. Kirby v. State, 658 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
Accordingly, we affirm Brandon’s conviction and sentence but strike the attorney’s fee imposed, and remand with directions to modify the probation condition consistent with this opinion. On remand, attorney's fees may be reimposed after Brandon is giv en notice and an opportunity to be heard on the amount of the fee.
AFFIRM in part; REVERSE and REMAND in part.
WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Thelonious W. Kirby v. State, 658 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Evans v. State, 608 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Ware v. Walt Disney World Co. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 644 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Vezina v. State, 644 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)