G.D., 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 public defender fee was improperly assessed without notice and opportunity to object, but the adjudication of delinquency was proper.
G.D. was adjudicated delinquent for possession of cannabis and paraphernalia. The trial court assessed a public defender fee without providing G.D. no…
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
This is an appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), of G.D.’s adjudication of delinquency for possession of cannabis and paraphernalia. After careful review of the record, we find no error in G.D.’s adjudication of delinquency.
Appellate counsel has raised an issue of merit regarding the trial court’s assessment of a public defender fee against G.D. without notice and an opportunity to object. G.D. preserved this issue for review by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). His motion was deemed denied when the trial court took no action on it within sixty days. We find merit in this issue and reverse the public defender fee.
Section 938.29, Florida Statutes (2008), authorizes the assessment of a public defender fee and grants the state a lien to secure its payment. Although imposition of the fee is mandatory, see Cook v. State, 896 So.2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), the statute requires the trial court to give the defendant notice and an opportunity to object to the amount. See § 938.29(5). In addition, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1) provides that at sentencing, a defendant must be given notice of the right to a hearing to contest the amount of the lien. Here, the trial court failed to provide G.D. notice and an opportunity to contest the public defender fee.
*328Accordingly, we reverse the public defender fee. On remand, the trial court may reimpose the fee once our mandate issues only if it provides G.D. notice of its intent to do so and an opportunity for a hearing on the matter. See Bruno v. State, 960 So.2d 907 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
SILBERMAN and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…nder section 938.29(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2008) without informing the defendant of his right to contest the amount of the lien, as required by section 938.29(5), Florida Statutes and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1)); G.D. v. State, 42 So. 3d 327, 327-28 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing the public defender’s fee imposed pursuant to section 938.29, Florida Statutes (2008), because “[although imposition of the fee is mandatory, the statute requires the trial court to give the defendant notice and…
-
J. S. v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…e to provide a defendant with such notice and opportunity to be heard requires this court to reverse the imposition of the fee and remand for further proceedings. See, e.g., Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849, 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018); G.D. v. State, 42 So. 3d 327, 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Here, the record shows that J.S. was never provided with either notice of his right to contest the imposition of the public defender fee or an opportunity to be heard on the issue. Accordingly, the public defender fee wa…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Freddrick Lee Cook v. State, 896 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Bruno v. State, 960 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)