GARY LUCAS, 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.
Gary Lucas appealed the trial court's imposition of attorney's fees and costs without providing required notice or an opportunity to contest. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the fee imposition in two cases, finding the trial court violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1) by failing to notify Lucas of his right to a hearing to contest the fees.
Yes. The trial court's failure to comply with Rule 3.720(d)(1) was error requiring reversal and remand. The defendant must be given notice of the imposition of a lien for public defender fees and must be advised of his right to a hearing to contest the amount at the time of sentencing.
[1] A trial court commits error by failing to notify an accused of the imposition of a lien for attorney's fees and costs at the time of sentencing.
[2] A trial court must advise a defendant of their right to a hearing to contest the amount of public defender fees imposed at the time of sentencing.
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“If the accused was represented by a public defender or special assistant public defender, the court shall notify the accused of the imposition of a lien ... Notice of the accused's right to a hearing to contest the amount of the lien shall be given at the time of sentence.”
Establishes the mandatory statutory requirement for notice and opportunity to contest public defender fees at sentencing
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered judgments/liens for attorney's fees and costs of $700 each in two criminal cases. At sentencing, the trial court stated only t…
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 Motion To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order denying appellant’s motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).1
In Lower Tribunal Case Numbers 98-5660 CF10A and 98-7665 CF10A, the trial court entered a judgment/lien for attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $700 each. At sentencing, the court stated only that it was imposing mandatory court costs. The court did not announce the amount of attorney’s fees imposed or advise appellant of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of fees imposed.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1) provides:
If the accused was represented by a public defender or special assistant public defender, the court shall notify the accused of the imposition of a lien ... Notice of the accused’s right to a hearing to contest the amount of the lien shall be given at the time of sentence.
Because the trial court failed to comply with this provision, we reverse and remand the imposition of fees with directions to the trial court to afford appellant adequate notice and the opportunity to contest the amount imposed. See Louisgeste v. State, 706 So. 2d 29, 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), receded from on other grounds, Hyden v. State, 715 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(failure of trial court to advise defendant of his right to a hearing to contest amount of public defender fees imposed was error and required remand); Brown v. State, 682 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(reversal of imposition of public defender fees required when defendant was not advised at sentencing of right to contest fees).
We affirm as to Lower Tribunal Case Numbers 97-17849 CF 10 A, 97-21337 CF 10 A, 98-22868 CF 10 A, 98-11833 CF 10 A and 98-4417 CF 10 A, because appellant has not raised any issues on appeal with respect to those consolidated cases.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with directions.
DELL, WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . Because more than sixty days had passed since appellant filed this motion and the trial court had not ruled on it as of the date of appellant’s brief, the motion is deemed denied. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hyden v. State, 715 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Brown v. State, 682 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Jacques Louisgeste v. State, 706 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)