DEREK THOMAS CHAPMAN, 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.
Derek Chapman appeals the trial court's assessment of $18,514.37 in costs and fees following his involuntary commitment as a sexually violent predator under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act. The court reversed, holding that no statutory authority exists to impose such costs and fees in civil commitment proceedings under the Act.
The trial court lacks power to impose costs and fees in a Jimmy Ryce proceeding because no statute authorizes the taxation of such costs against an involuntarily committed defendant. Although the defendant is entitled to appointed counsel, there is no statutory provision for a lien for repayment comparable to what exists in criminal cases.
[1] There is no statutory authority to impose costs and fees for a prosecution under the Involuntary Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act.
[2] In proceedings under the Involuntary Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act, the Department of Children and Family Services is responsible for all costs.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“There is no statutory authority to impose costs and fees for a prosecution under the Sexually Violent Predators Act. In fact, the Department of Children and Family Services is responsible for all costs.”
Establishes the core holding that the Jimmy Ryce Act provides no authority for cost assessment against the defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State sought involuntary civil commitment of Chapman as a sexually violent predator under the Jimmy Ryce Act. The trial court found Chapman indige…
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 Involuntary Civil Commitment Of Sexually Violent Predators Act (Jimmy Ryce Act) cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
Appellant, Derek Chapman, timely appeals the assessment of costs and fees against him associated with the state’s prosecution of him under the Involuntary Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act, also known as the Jimmy Ryce Act. He argues that there is no authority for the assessment of costs and fees. We agree and reverse.
The state sought involuntary commitment of Chapman to the custody of the Department of Children and Families as a sexually violent predator pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act. See §§ 394.910-394.932, Fla. Stat. The court found Chapman indigent and appointed a public defender to represent him. After the jury verdict finding him to be a sexually violent predator and committing him to the DCF, the court assessed fees and costs in the amount of $18,514.37. Defendant appeals this assessment.
There is no statutory authority to impose costs and fees for a prosecution under the Sexually Violent Predators Act. In fact, the Department of Children and Family Services is responsible for all costs. § 394.929, Fla. Stat. Although a defendant is entitled to counsel, and the court is required to appoint counsel, there is no provision for a lien for repayment, as there is upon a criminal conviction. See § 938.29, Fla. Stat. In the criminal law, “[i]t is well established that a court lacks the power to impose costs in a criminal case unless specifically authorized by statute.” Holmes v. State, 658 So. 2d 1185, 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (quoting Williams v. State, 596 So. 2d 758, 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)). While Jimmy Ryce proceedings are civil, the constitutional requirement of counsel is imposed because involuntary commitment triggers due process protections. See Hillsborough County v. Albrechta, 841 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (applying right to counsel to Marchman Act proceedings). Thus, the involuntary nature of the proceedings makes the counsel appointment similar to the appointment in criminal proceedings. Because of this, we apply Holmes and conclude that the trial court lacks the power to impose costs or fees in a Jimmy Ryce proceeding, because the authority to tax them as costs against the involuntarily committed defendant is not authorized by statute.
Reversed.
FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Priest v. State, 993 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…ent of costs and fees against appellant in proceedings brought by the state against appellant under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (Jimmy Ryce Act). There is no statutory authorization for assessment of such costs and fees. See Chapman v. State, 974 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). TAYLOR, HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur.…
-
Perron v. State, 995 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…all costs incurred in such a proceeding. § 394.929, Fla. Stat. (2002). In Chapman v. State, this court confirmed that there is no statutory authority for a trial court to impose court costs and fees on the defendant in a case brought under the Act. 974 So. 2d 625, 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). We went on to explain that the involuntary nature of proceedings under the Sexually Violent Predators Act makes both the proceedings and the defendant’s right to appointed counsel comparable to those in criminal cases, and…
-
McCRORY v. State, 990 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…civil commitment proceeding initiated by the Department of Children and Families under the Jimmy Ryce Act. We reverse the trial court s assessment of fees and costs against McCrory in accordance with this court’s recent opinion in Chapman v. State, 974 So. 2d 625, 626-27 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), in which we held that “the trial court lacks the power to impose costs or fees in a Jimmy Ryce proceeding, because the authority to tax them as costs against the involuntarily committed defendant is not authorized by sta…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 596 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Holmes v. State, 658 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Hillsborough Cnty. v. Albrechta, 841 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)