ALEXIS DEL VALLE, 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.
Del Valle appeals his convictions and sentences for armed kidnapping, robbery, grand theft, battery, and drug possession. The court affirmed his convictions and sentences but reversed and remanded regarding prosecution costs and public defender fees that were imposed without proper statutory procedures.
The trial court erred in imposing the prosecution costs because they were not requested by the prosecuting agency and no documentation was presented. The court also erred in imposing the public defender fees because they were not announced at sentencing and Del Valle was not advised of his right to a hearing to contest them. Both sets of costs and fees must be stricken.
[1] Prosecution costs may not be imposed unless documented and requested by the prosecuting agency at sentencing.
[2] A trial court must announce public defender fees at sentencing and inform the defendant of their right to contest the awards.
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“Under the version of the cost statute applicable to Del Valle, Del Valle is liable for documented costs of prosecution if the documented costs were requested by the prosecuting agency.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for imposing prosecution costs, which was not met here.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDel Valle was convicted of armed kidnapping, robbery with a deadly weapon, grand theft of a motor vehicle, battery on a victim over 65, possession of …
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 Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Alexis Del Valle appeals his sentences for armed kidnapping, robbery with a deadly weapon, grand theft of a motor vehicle, battery on a victim over 65, possession of cannabis, and possession of drug paraphernalia. We affirm his convictions and sentences but reverse and remand for further proceedings on costs and fees.
Del Valle argues that the trial court erred in imposing $150 in prosecution costs because the costs were not requested or announced at sentencing and no documentation was presented supporting the costs. The State concedes error on this point. Del Valle preserved this sentencing error by filing a motion to correct sentencing error. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2). The trial court did not rule on the motion within 60 days; therefore, it is deemed denied. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B), (b)(1)(B). Under the version of the cost statute applicable to Del Valle, Del Valle is liable for documented costs of prosecution if the documented costs were requested by the prosecuting agency. See § 938.27(1), Fla. Stat. (2007).1 The written sentence provides that $150 was assessed for prosecution costs, but the sentencing transcript indicates that the State did not request such costs or produce documentation to support such costs. Therefore, these costs must be stricken. See James v. State, 898 So.2d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Ortiz v. State, 884 So.2d 77, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The trial court may impose the costs on remand if *652the statutory requirements are met. See Diaz v. State, 901 So.2d 310, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Ortiz, 884 So.2d at 78.
Del Valle also argues that the trial court erred in imposing $110 and $40 in public defender fees because the fees were not announced at sentencing and Del Valle was not informed of his right to contest the awards. The State also concedes error on this point. The public defender fees were not announced at sentencing, and Del Valle was not advised of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of the public defender fees. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.720(d)(1). Therefore, the public defender fees must be stricken. See Walker v. State, 660 So.2d 361, 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). On remand, the trial court may reimpose the fees only if it provides Del Valle notice of its intent to do so and the opportunity to be heard at a hearing on the matter. See Bruno v. State, 960 So.2d 907, 907 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
ALTENBERND and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dwon Parker v. State, 44 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…at the State requested or demonstrated these costs as required under the statute. See § 938.27(1) & (4), Fla. Stat. (2009). Accordingly, the Sheriffs Investigatory Cost and the Prosecution Investigatory Cost must be stricken. See Del Valle v. State, 26 So. 3d 650, 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). With respect to the Public Defender/Regional Conflict Counsel Fees, the fees were not announced at sentencing and the appellant was not advised of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of the fees. See Fla. R.Crim. P…
-
Ingraham v. State, 32 So. 3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…re permitting Mr. Ingraham to proceed pro se with standby counsel. . The legislature amended section 938.27(1), effective July 1, 2008, to eliminate the documentation requirement. Ch. 08-111, § 44, at 725, Laws of Fla.; see also Del Valle v. State, 26 So. 3d 650, 652 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (noting same). We do not address whether the amended statute may be applied retroactively to Mr. Ingraham. See Griffin v. State, 980 So. 2d 1035 (Fla.2008) (determining retro-activity of an amendment to a cost statute).…
-
Marvalius Laclut Swift v. State, 53 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…r whether the court properly advised him of his right to a hearing to contest the amount. We therefore strike the public defender fee without prejudice to it being reimposed on remand after the proper procedures are followed. See Del Valle v. State, 26 So. 3d 650, 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Finally, as to the $3 fee to “Teen Court Fund” under section 938.19, we affirm the assessment but remand for the trial court to correct the amended order assessing fines and costs to reflect the applicable ordinance in accor…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ortiz v. State, 884 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Bruno v. State, 960 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Bass v. State, 901 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Diaz v. State, 901 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- James v. State, 898 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Walker v. State, 660 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)