ROBERT V. THIBAULT, 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.
The court held that investigative costs and attorney's fees were improperly imposed without proper procedure and must be reconsidered or stricken.
[1] A trial court must consider a defendant's financial resources when imposing investigative costs.
[2] A trial court errs by imposing investigative costs without inquiring into the defendant's financial resources.
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 intelligenceThe defendant appealed his convictions and sentences, specifically challenging investigative costs and attorney's fees imposed by the trial court. The…
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 Investigative Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
Robert V. Thibault appeals his convictions and sentences for burglary and grand theft. Thibault contends that the trial court erred: (1) in denying his motion to suppress an in-court identification, (2) in imposing investigative costs without considering Thibault’s ability to pay, and (3) in imposing attorney’s fees without informing Thibault of his right to contest the amount. We affirm, without comment, on the first ground. However, we reverse and remand Thibault’s sentences with instructions to strike the $232 in investigatory costs and consider Thibault’s financial resources before reimposing them and to strike the $800 in attorney’s fees, as the trial court previously ordered.
Thibault properly filed a motion to correct sentencing error, asserting that the trial court improperly imposed $232 in investigative costs when it failed to consider Thibault’s financial resources. In denying Thibault’s motion, the trial court erroneously relied on Cook v. State, 896 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), and concluded that an inquiry into a defendant’s financial resources is discretionary with the court. In Cook, this court held that imposing a public defender fee without considering the defendant’s financial resources is proper because section 938.29, Florida Statutes (2003), does not require consideration of a defendant’s ability to pay. In contrast, section 938.27(5), Florida Statutes (2002) (the version in effect on March 30, 2003, the date of Thibault’s offenses), expressly requires the court to consider “the financial resources of the defendant” in imposing investigative costs. Because the trial court did not inquire into Thibault’s financial resources, it erred in imposing the investigative costs. Notably, the State rightfully concedes the error. On remand, the trial court may reimpose the investigatory costs after it considers Thibault’s financial resources. See Smith v. State, 714 So. 2d 1152,1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
In Thibault’s motion to correct sentencing error, he also asserted that the trial court improperly imposed $800 in attorney’s fees when it failed to inform Thibault of his right to contest the amount. The trial court granted this portion of Thi-bault’s motion, which the State did not appeal. However, Thibault notes, and the State concedes, that the judgment and sentence was never corrected to strike the $800 in attorney’s fees.
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded with instructions to: (1) strike the $232 in investigative costs and consider Thi-bault’s financial resources before reimposing these costs and (2) strike the $800 in attorney’s fees, in fulfillment of the trial court’s previous order. SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. State, 963 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…nt requires that costs imposed under the 2002 version of section 938.27 be stricken when either of these conditions has not been satisfied. See, e.g., Taylor v. State, 821 So. 2d 404, 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (no request for costs); Thibault v. State, 945 So. 2d 646, 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (court’s failure to inquire into defendant’s financial resources). On remand, the court shall strike the two costs but may reimpose them if the requisites of section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2002), are satisfied, in particul…
-
Raleigh M. Broadnax v. State, 987 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…required to consider “the financial resources ... [and] the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant” before imposing this prosecution/investigative cost. See Clark v. State, 963 So. 2d 911, 912-13 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Thibault v. State, 945 So. 2d 646, 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Next, Broadnax challenges the trial court’s imposition of $65 pursuant to section 775.083(2), Florida Statutes (2000). He argues that this cost should be stricken because it was discretionary on the date of the offense, it…
-
Negron v. State, 958 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…in a specified period or in specified installments as authorized by subsection (3) of the 2000 version of section 938.27. Affirmed. CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur. . Ch.2003-402, § 127, Laws of Fla. . We recognize that in Thibault v. State, 945 So. 2d 646, 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), this court addressed a March 2003 offense and reversed investigative costs upon a concession by the State that the trial court failed to consider Thibault’s financial resources. However, the opinion does not reflect whether…
Authorities Cited
- Freddrick Lee Cook v. State, 896 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Smith v. State, 714 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)