CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE RIVERS, 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.
In an Anders review of Christopher Rivers' criminal conviction, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions but remanded for correction of sentencing errors. The court struck improperly imposed court costs and a public defender's lien, vacated a restitution order imposed without proper procedures, and ordered clarification of the supervision fee waiver provision.
The court affirmed the convictions but struck the $500 court costs assessment due to lack of notice, failure to consider the defendant's financial resources, and absence of statutory citation. The $250 public defender's lien was struck because it was imposed without adequate factual or legal basis and the defendant was not advised of his right to contest it. The restitution order was vacated because the amount was not properly announced or explained, depriving the defendant of the opportunity to be heard. The supervision fee waiver provision required correction to clarify that fees are waived if the defendant timely pays all costs and restitution.
[1] A trial court must provide notice and consider a defendant's financial resources and other factors before assessing discretionary court costs.
[2] A court costs assessment is invalid if the statutory authority for it is not cited.
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“We strike the assessment because the trial court failed to provide notice and failed to consider defendant's financial resources and other factors in making the decision to assess these discretionary costs.”
Establishes the requirement that discretionary court costs must be imposed with proper notice and consideration of the defendant's financial ability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChristopher Rivers was convicted after trial. At sentencing, the trial court orally ordered Rivers to pay $500 in court costs and imposed a $250 publi…
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 Amount Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this matter presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we see no error affecting the convictions and therefore affirm. We affirm the sentence except we remand to strike improperly imposed costs and to vacate the imposition of a public defender’s lien and order of restitution without prejudice to the reimposition thereof upon compliance with the proper procedures as set forth below.
The trial court orally ordered the defendant to pay a lump sum of $500 in court costs. We strike the assessment because the trial court failed to provide notice and failed to consider defendant’s financial resources and other factors in making the decision to assess these discretionary costs. See Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Additionally, the $500 court costs assessment is fatal because no statutory authority is cited. McCray v. State, 665 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The record herein fails to reflect compliance with these requirements. Our disposition herein is without prejudice to reimposition of these costs on remand after following the procedures outlined in Reyes.
We also strike the imposition of a public defender’s lien in the amount of $250. The lien was imposed without adequate factual or legal basis shown in the record and the defendant was not advised of his right to a hearing to contest the amount thereof. We remand with directions to advise the defendant of his right to a hearing and, if a hearing is requested, to set one pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1). Kirby v. State, 658 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
With regard to restitution, the trial court orally announced at sentencing a restitution amount as indicated on the presen-tence investigation report, but failed to announce the amount. The written sentence also fails to indicate the amount ordered. The manner in which restitution was imposed deprived the defendant of opportunity to be heard with regard to the amount of loss sustained by the victim as well as defendant’s ability to pay the assessed amount. Accordingly, the restitution is vacated and remanded to the lower court for reimposition if appropriate, on proper notice, hearing and pronouncement in compliance with section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1993).
Lastly, we remand as to the provision in the written sentencing order regarding waiver of supervision fees with directions that the trial court correct the written sentencing or der to conform with its oral pronouncement. The trial court waived supervision fees so long as the defendant was current on all his other payments of court costs and restitution. In the written sentencing order, it states that supervision fees are waived until costs and restitution are paid. The written order must be corrected to reflect that if the defendant timely pays all costs and restitution that he will not incur any supervision fees.
The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED in all other respects. REMANDED.
WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. State, 678 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…65 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). On remand, the state may seek reimposition of appropriate costs in accordance with the procedures set forth in Reyes, 655 So. 2d at 111, and in Bryant v. State, 661 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Rivers v. State, 677 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Madison v. State, 664 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). In summary, Mitchell’s convictions are AFFIRMED. We REVERSE the habitual felony offender adjudications in Counts III and V and REMAND for resentencing. We AFFIRM the senten…
-
R.R. v. State, 956 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…the defendant-recipient shall ... determine the value of the services of the public defender.... ”). The amount of the obligation cannot be based on an arbitrary figure; rather, it must be supported by an adequate factual basis. See Rivers v. State, 677 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Swift v. State, 638 So. 2d 193, 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (“It appears that, in part, the lower court’s cost assessments and public defender’s lien were imposed without following proper procedure or without adequate factual or leg…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Thelonious W. Kirby v. State, 658 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- McCRAY v. State, 665 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)