DAVID GAINES, 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.
David Gaines appealed a $1,750 public defender lien imposed at sentencing, arguing he received no notice and had no opportunity to contest the amount. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that the sentencing error was not preserved for appeal because Gaines failed to file a timely motion under Rule 3.800(b) within thirty days of sentencing.
The court affirmed the sentencing, holding that the public defender lien error was not preserved for appellate review because Gaines failed to file a Rule 3.800(b) motion within thirty days of sentencing. The court declined to treat the sentencing error as fundamental error, and stated that erroneous costs, conditions of probation, or public defender liens are not classified as serious, patent sentencing errors correctable without preservation.
[1] A sentencing error, such as the imposition of a public defender lien without notice or an opportunity to contest, must be preserved for appellate review by filing a motio…
[2] Failure to comply with the time constraints of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) precludes appellate review of sentencing errors, even if administratively diffi…
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 intelligence“Mr. Gaines failed to preserve this error by filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) within thirty days after the rendition of his sentence.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for preserving sentencing errors on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Gaines was sentenced on February 20, 1997. At sentencing, a $1,750 public defender lien was imposed without notice to Gaines or opportunity for …
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'S Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
On motion for rehearing, David Gaines argues that this court should reverse the imposition of a $1750 public defender lien because the trial court did not give him notice of this cost and did not give him the right to contest this amount at his sentencing hearing on February 20, 1997. We affirm because the only preserved issue concerning the conviction is without merit, and this sentencing error has not been preserved for appellate review.
Mr. Gaines failed to preserve this error by filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) within thirty days after the rendition of his sentence. Even though it may be administratively difficult for defense counsel to operate within the time constraints of rule 3.800(b), we cannot relieve counsel of the obligation to comply with this rule. At least in the typical case, we will not treat erroneous costs, conditions of probation, or public defender liens as fundamental error now that counsel has an additional thirty days in which to object and preserve any error within the written sentencing documents. See Locke v. State, 23 Fla. Law Weekly D2399 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct.21, 1998); Hyden v. State, 715 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The imposition of such a public defender lien will not be classified as a serious, patent sentencing error, which is correctable, even if the error is neither preserved nor fundamental. See Denson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1225, 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We recognize that this issue has been certified to the supreme court as an issue of great public importance in Locke, but we see no reason to certify the issue in every case in which it arises. If the supreme court disagrees with the position taken in Locke, Mr. Gaines and the numerous other defendants with similar sentencing issues will be able to correct these errors by filing postconviction motions with the trial courts.
Affirmed.
PARKER, C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)…ved error in the assessment of costs cannot be considered a serious, patent sentencing error that should be corrected on appeal as fundamental in the absence of proper preservation in the trial court. Accord Bain, 730 So. 2d at 305; Gaines v. State, 724 So. 2d 139, 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that [*110] improper imposition of public defender lien is neither fundamental nor serious, patent sentencing error). As with the pending cases in which the defendant asserts error because of a deviation from the or…
-
Bain v. State, 730 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…the defendant’s incarceration or supervision likely would impress us as fundamental. But only in an extreme case would an improper cost assessment or public defender’s lien qualify as fundamental error. See Gaines v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2645, 724 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that improper imposition of public defender lien is neither fundamental nor serious, patent sentencing error). BAIN’S SENTENCES Bain pleaded guilty to robbery without a weapon, a second degree felony. See § 812.13(2)(c)…
-
Lucious Tibbs v. State, 745 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…her discussion. We AFFIRM the sentences without modification, as none of the errors asserted is fundamental. See Locke v. State, 719 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). See also Smith v. State, 723 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), and Gaines v. State, 724 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We certify, as a matter of great public importance, the same issue which we certified in Locke: DOES THE FAILURE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO ORALLY PRONOUNCE EACH STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED COST INDIVIDUALLY AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING CO…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hyden v. State, 715 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Denson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)