MATTHEW HOLM, 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.
A defendant appealed his withheld adjudication and probation sentence, challenging the imposition of drug screening costs and a public defender fee without proper oral pronouncement and opportunity to object. The court affirmed the conviction but struck the cost provisions and remanded for proper procedures.
The court held that the trial court erred by failing to orally pronounce the cost provision for drug and alcohol testing and by failing to give Holm an opportunity to object to the public defender fee. These provisions were struck from the sentence.
[1] A special condition of probation requiring the defendant to pay for drug and alcohol testing must be orally pronounced by the court.
[2] A defendant must be afforded an opportunity to object to the amount of a public defender's fee assessment.
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“the trial court included a condition requiring Holm to submit to random drug and alcohol screening and to incur the costs associated therewith. The cost provision was not orally pronounced.”
Establishes the procedural error of failing to orally pronounce the cost condition
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMatthew Holm entered a no contest plea to possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia after his motion to suppress was denied. The trial cour…
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 Probationary Term cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1186] SALCINES, Judge.
The public defender brings this Anders1 appeal on behalf of Matthew Holm regarding his withheld adjudications and the probationary terms imposed thereon as well as the denial of his motion to correct sentencing errors. We affirm in all respects save for the denial of his motion to correct sentence. Because a special condition of probation involving a cost was imposed without oral pronouncement and a public defender’s lien was imposed without affording Holm an opportunity to object to the amount of the assessment, we strike those provisions and remand.
Holm entered a no contest plea to possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia following the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress.
The trial court withheld adjudication and placed Holm on two years’ probation for possession of methamphetamine with a concurrent term of one year’s probation for possession of drug paraphernalia. In the written order of probation, the trial court included a condition requiring Holm to submit to random drug and alcohol screening and to incur the costs associated therewith. The cost provision was not orally pronounced.
Additionally, the trial court ordered that Holm pay a public defender fee of $300. Holm was denied an opportunity to object to the amount of that assessment. During the pendency of this appeal, Holm filed a motion to correct these provisions with the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(2).
The trial court denied that motion.
Holm correctly argues that the trial court erred in failing to orally pronounce the special condition of probation that he pay for random drug and alcohol testing. See State v. Williams, 712 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1998); Torres v. State, 712 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
Hence, we strike that portion of the condition requiring Holm to pay for alcohol or drug testing. Likewise, Holm correctly argues that the trial court erred in failing to give him an opportunity to object to the amount assessed for the public defender’s fees. See Laurain v. State, 708 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); see also Richie v. State, 777 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
Thus, we strike the public defender’s lien without prejudice to reimpose it on remand in accordance with the proper procedure. See Walker v. State, 710 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
Affirmed in part; stricken in part and remanded with instructions.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla.1991); State v. Davis, 290 So. 2d 30 (Fla.1974).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ciccia v. State, 854 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…e which was preserved for appeal by the denial of his rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. The public defender’s fee and hen are therefore stricken, without prejudice to being reimposed on remand after the proper procedure is followed. See, e.g., Holm v. State, 784 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Fisher v. State, 697 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with instructions. WARNER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
-
Cobb v. State, 42 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…e the trial court imposed a public defender fee without affording Cobb an opportunity to object to the amount of the assessment, we strike the fee without prejudice to reimpose it on remand in accordance with the proper procedure. See Holm v. State, 784 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Affirmed in part; remanded with instructions. WALLACE and LaROSE, JJ., Concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla.1991).…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- In re App. Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Chuck Junior Williams, 712 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1998)
- State v. Cullen Davis, 290 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1974)
- Richie v. State, 777 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Torres v. State, 712 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Fusik v. State, 710 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Wyatt v. State, 708 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Laurain v. State, 708 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)