CHRISTOPHER EMMANUEL NASH, 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 the trial court erred by not providing notice and an opportunity to object to attorney's fees and costs, and by imposing a different amount than orally announced.
[1] A trial court must provide a defendant notice and an opportunity to object to the amount of attorney's fees and cost assessments.
[2] A defendant must be advised of their right to a hearing to contest the amount of attorney's fees and cost assessments.
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 was assessed attorney's fees and costs at sentencing, but was not informed of his right to a hearing to contest the amounts, and the wri…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.720(D)(1) cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Christopher Emmanuel Nash appeals his judgments and sentences for sale or delivery of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance. We affirm his judgments and sentences without comment. However, we reverse the imposition of certain costs.1
At sentencing, the trial court orally announced the imposition of a $40 fee for the services of the public defender. How ever, the sentencing document reflects that Nash was assessed $425 for attorney’s fees and $40 for costs pursuant to section 938.29(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2005).
Section 938.29(5) requires the trial court to give notice and an opportunity for a defendant to object to the amount of an attorney’s fee and cost assessment. Further, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1), a defendant must be advised of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of these costs. Miller v. State, 912 So. 2d 1282, 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). In the present ease, the trial court did not inform Nash of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of the public defender’s fee and the cost assessment, and furthermore, the sentencing document does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement.
Accordingly, we reverse the assessment of $425 for attorney’s fees and $40 for costs. On remand, Nash shall have thirty days from the date of the mandate to file a written objection to the amount assessed. See Miller, 912 So. 2d at 1283. If Nash flies such an objection, the trial court should hold a hearing, and if Nash fails to timely file an objection, the trial court may reimpose the fee and cost assessment without a hearing. Id.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
ALTENBERND and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. . Nash preserved this issue by filing a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). The circuit court failed to rule on the motion within sixty days as required by rule 3.800(b)(2), and therefore, the motion is deemed denied. See Jones v. State, 898 So. 2d 209, 210 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mojica v. State, 192 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…contest the imposition of an assessment above $100. Id. Here, the trial court improperly imposed this assessment in an amount over $100 without first providing Mr. Mojica notice of his right to contest the amount. That was error. See Nash v. State, 958 So. 2d 471, 471-72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). On remand, the trial court shall enter a new judgment and sentence and may, if it so decides, reimpose the fine, surcharge, and assessment after providing notice to Mr. Mojica and following the appropriate procedure. See…
-
West v. State, 82 So. 3d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…gued the fee was imposed without compliance with the procedures mandated by section 938.29(5) and rule 3.720(d)(1). See Del Valle v. State, 26 So. 3d 650, 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Bruno v. State, 960 So. 2d 907, 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Nash v. State, 958 So. 2d 471, 471-72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Accordingly, we reject the state’s argument and hold West’s contention that he was denied the statutorily mandated hearing is a sufficient substantive basis on which to challenge the imposition of the public defender’s f…
-
Destanee Thiemann v. State, 17 So. 3d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…fees in accordance with section 938.29(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2007).1 The State concedes this was error. We agree that the trial court erred because the sentencing document must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Nash v. State, 958 So. 2d 471, 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Piper v. State, 520 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We also note that the trial court failed to inform Thiemann of her right to a hearing to contest the amount of the public defender’s fee. See Nash, 958 So. 2d at 472; Miller…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 898 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Miller v. State, 912 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)