JIMMIE L. TENNANT, 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.
Jimmie Tennant appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct sentence, challenging a $50,000 investigative cost judgment and a $1,500 public defender lien imposed without notice or opportunity to be heard. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that such procedural challenges must be raised on direct appeal or through other appropriate motions, not through a 3.800(a) motion.
The court held that challenges to cost judgments and public defender liens due to lack of notice and opportunity to contest them are not cognizable in a Rule 3.800(a) motion. Such procedural errors should have been objected to at sentencing and raised on direct appeal, or addressed through a motion to withdraw plea or a 3.850 motion. The alleged errors do not constitute an illegal sentence or fundamental error.
[1] A motion to correct sentence under Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle to challenge the imposition of cost judgments or public defender liens based on lack of notice…
[2] Issues regarding the imposition of cost judgments and public defender liens should be raised at sentencing or on direct appeal.
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 invalidity of the imposition of such cost judgments and public defender liens due to lack of notice and opportunity to challenge them, are matters which should have been objected to at sentencing and raised on direct appeal.”
Establishes that procedural challenges to cost judgments and liens must be raised on direct appeal, not through Rule 3.800(a) motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTennant entered into a plea bargain in eleven consolidated 1993 Seminole County cases. He contended he agreed to investigative costs of $15,267 but th…
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
Tennant appeals from the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) to correct sentence. He asserts the trial court failed to attach parts of the sentencing transcript which establish the validity of a $50,000.00 investigative cost judgment rendered against him in eleven 1993 Seminole County cases.1 He also contends that a public defender lien was imposed without notice or opportunity to be heard. We affirm.
Tennant, entered into a plea bargain with the state in the eleven cases which were consolidated for sentencing. Ten-nant states that part of the plea bargain contemplated an investigative cost judgment in favor of the Seminole County Sheriffs Office for $15,267.00.2 Tennant maintains in this proceeding that he did not contemplate or have notice of the additional investigative costs totaling $50,000.00, which the trial judge imposed at sentencing in favor of the state. Ten-nant also asserts that the court imposed a public defender lien in the amount of $1,500.00 without providing him notice of his right to contest the amount of the lien.
The invalidity of the imposition of such cost judgments and public defender liens due to lack of notice and opportunity to challenge them, are matters which should have been objected to at sentencing and raised on direct appeal. See Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000); State v. Mike, 760 So. 2d 145 (Fla.2000). Further, because these matters involve issues of fact and procedure, they are not cognizable in the context of a motion filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a). See Robinson v. State, 692 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Church v. State, 652 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). These alleged errors do not produce an illegal sentence or fundamental error. Any issue concerning the voluntariness of Tennant’s pleas in these eleven cases, should have been raised in a motion to withdraw his pleas prior to sentencing, or in a 3.850 motion filed thereafter.3 AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, CJ., and COBB, J., concur. . Seminole County Case Nos. 93-3501, 93-3546, 93-3547, 93-3548, 93-3551, 93-3552, 93-3553, 93-3554, 93-3580, 93-3588, and 93-3590.
. See generally, § 938.27(1), Fla. Stat. (2001).
. After Tennant was sentenced, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170 was amended to allow a motion to withdraw plea to be filed within 30 days after sentencing. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.170(Z) (effective January 1, 1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
NIX v. State, 975 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…[*577] PER CURIAM. We affirm the denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion to correct sentence, but without prejudice to raising the issue in a timely, non-successive rule 8.850 motion. See generally Tennant v. State, 827 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).. SHAHOOD, C.J., WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Preston Duke John Church v. State, 652 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- ALL Am. Soup & Salad, Inc. v. Colonial Promenade, 652 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- State v. Ezekias Mike, 760 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Dodson, 760 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 2000)
- Robinson v. State, 692 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Durden v. State, 692 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)