CARLOS HERNANDEZ, 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.
Carlos Hernandez appeals the trial court's order using $562 of confiscated currency to satisfy court costs and public defender fees without an underlying judgment for the attorney's fees portion. The appellate court reverses and remands, holding that absent a proper judgment, the court cannot use confiscated funds to pay public defender attorney's fees.
The trial court could not order the entire $562 remitted to satisfy the financial obligations without a judgment covering the public defender attorney's fees. The court must either return the $75 or enter a proper judgment with required documentation, notice, and opportunity for the appellant to be heard before imposing the fee.
[1] A trial court cannot order the remission of confiscated currency to satisfy public defender attorney's fees when the record lacks a written judgment for such fees.
[2] A trial court may impose a judgment for public defender attorney's fees only after meeting the requirements of documentation, notice, and an opportunity for the defendant…
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“A defendant who is convicted of a criminal act ... and who has received the assistance of the public defender's office [or] a special assistant public defender ... shall be liable for payment of the assessed application fee under s. 27.52 and attorney's fees and costs.... The court shall include these fees and costs in every judgment rendered against the convicted person.”
Establishes statutory requirement that public defender fees must be included in a judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHernandez was arrested and had $562 in U.S. currency confiscated. The trial court ordered the confiscated funds remitted to the clerk to satisfy a $48…
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 Motion For Return Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Carlos Hernandez, appeals from an order denying his motion for return of property (U.S. currency) that was confiscated from him at the time of his arrest. The trial court denied his motion and ordered the state attorney’s office to remit the confiscated $562 to the clerk of the court to satisfy a mandatory court costs judgment previously entered by the trial court in the amount of $487.
Of the monies confiscated and remitted to the clerk of the court, $75 was attributed to public defender attorney’s fees; however, the record is devoid of any written judgment covering such a financial obligation. See § 938.29(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009) (“A defendant who is convicted of a criminal act ... and who has received the assistance of the public defender’s office [or] a special assistant public defender ... shall be liable for payment of the assessed application fee under s. 27.52 and attorney’s fees and costs.... The court shall include these fees and costs in every judgment rendered against the convicted person.”) (emphasis added).
Because the record does not contain a judgment attributable to public defender attorney’s fees, the trial court was not entitled to order the entire $562 confiscated from Hernandez to be remitted to the clerk of the court. As such, this matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter an order requiring the return of the appellant’s $75. Alternatively, the lower court may impose a judgment against Hernandez covering the $75 balance (and presumably more) representing the value of the services received by Hernandez from the public defender if the requirements of documentation, notice and *177opportunity for the appellant to be heard are met. See § 938.30(6), Fla. Stat. (2009) (“If judgment has not been previously entered on any court-imposed financial obligation, the court may enter judgment thereon.... Any judgment issued under this section constitutes a civil lien against the judgment debtor’s presently owned or after-acquired property_”); Alexis v. State, 12 So.3d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Alexis v. State of Fla. & Fort Pierce Police Dep't, 12 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)