CHARLES HINKLE, 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.
Charles Hinkle appealed his convictions for possession of cannabis and drug paraphernalia, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but remanded for correction of sentencing errors regarding the guidelines scoresheet, public defender's lien notice, a probation condition, and erroneous investigatory cost assessment.
The court affirmed the convictions and denial of the motion to suppress, but remanded to: (1) clarify whether the guidelines scoresheet was physically present at sentencing; (2) allow Hinkle thirty days to object to the public defender's lien amount; (3) strike the drug testing cost provision from the probation order; and (4) strike the additional $150 investigatory cost assessment from the written judgment.
[1] A trial court's oral pronouncement at sentencing must be reflected in the written judgment, and any discrepancy requires remand for correction.
[2] A defendant must be informed of their right to contest the amount of a public defender's lien imposed by the court.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 trial court orally pronounced at sentencing that it was imposing a public defender's lien against Hinkle, it improperly failed to inform him of his right to contest the amount of the lien”
Establishes the trial court's error in failing to provide notice of Hinkle's right to contest the lien amount, violating procedural requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Hinkle was convicted of possession of cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia. At sentencing, the trial court orally pronounced a public…
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 Investigative Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
[*622] WHATLEY, Judge.
The appellant, Charles Hinkle, challenges his judgments and sentences for possession of cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia. We find no merit in his contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and, thus, affirm his convictions without further comment. We do, however, remand “to clarify whether the guidelines seoresheet referred to by the state and defense counsel at the sentencing hearing was ‘physically present before the judge and the court on the date of sentencing.’” Belew v. State, 616 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and cases cited therein.
Further, the record reveals that though the trial court orally pronounced at sentencing that it was imposing a public defender’s lien against Hinkle, it improperly failed to inform him of his right to contest the amount of the lien. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720(d)(1). See also Bull v. State, 548 So. 2d 1103 (Fla.1989); Wilson v. State, 675 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), and cases cited therein. On remand, Hinkle will therefore have thirty days from the date of this court’s mandate to file a written objection to the amount assessed for public defender fees. Bourque v. State, 595 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In the event an objection is filed, the trial court shall strike the current assessment and shall not impose a new one without proper notice and a hearing. Id. Should Hinkle fail to file an objection, the trial court is directed to correct the written judgment to properly reflect the fee lien, which appears to have been omitted therefrom due to a scrivener’s error. In addition, that portion of special condition A of Hinkle’s probation order, which requires him to pay for the cost of random drug testing, was not orally pronounced at sentencing. That narrow provision is therefore stricken, see Malone v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), without prejudice to the state to seek reimposition on remand, see Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Finally, we note that the written judgment erroneously indicates the imposition of an additional $150 for the cost of investigation. While the record shows the trial court orally pronounced the imposition of $150 for the standard cost of prosecution — which presumably included an assessment for the cost of investigation per Hin-kle’s plea agreement — it did not announce an additional assessment for investigatory costs. The additional assessment for the cost of investigation, which is reflected on the last page of the written judgment on the line designated “OTHER,” is therefore stricken.
Accordingly, the instant cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Hinkle’s judgments and sentences are otherwise affirmed.
Affirmed in part, stricken in part, and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Daniels v. State, 709 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…of the mandate to file a written objection to the fee assessed. If an objection is filed, the assessment should be stricken, and a new assessment may be imposed in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1). See Hinkle v. State, 675 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), Bourque v. State, 595 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Accordingly, we affirm Daniels’ conviction and sentence, but remand for him to have an opportunity to file a written objection to the public defender lien. THREADGILL, A.C.…
-
Freddy Rojas v. State, 711 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of the public defender’s lien. We remand to allow him thirty days from the date of this court’s mandate to file a written objection to the amount assessed for public defender fees. See Hinkle v. State, 675 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Bourque v. State, 595 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In the event an objection is filed, the trial court shall strike the current assessment and shall not impose a new one without proper notice and hearing. 675 So. 2d at 622. A…
Authorities Cited
- Bull v. State, 548 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1989)
- Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Bourque v. State, 595 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Guinn v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Milo L. Kirkland v. State, 675 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Wilson v. State, 675 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Belew v. State, 616 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)