RUBY CLAVELLE, 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.
Ruby Clavelle appealed her conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer and challenged various costs imposed in connection with that conviction. The court affirmed her conviction but vacated several improperly imposed costs and remanded for correction, finding that certain costs lacked proper statutory authority, notice, or met the statutory requirements.
The conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer is affirmed. However, several costs were improperly imposed: (1) the $150 Public Defender fee without notice and opportunity to be heard; (2) the $50 and $3 assessments with incorrect statutory citations; (3) the 'SOC IF 100' charge without explanation or citation of authority; (4) the $225 Local Government Criminal Justice Trust Fund charge, which should have been $200 under the statute in effect at the time of the offense; and (5) the $20 Crime Stoppers Trust Fund assessment, which cannot be imposed without a fine.
[1] A public defender fee assessment requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposition.
[2] Costs imposed under inaccurate statutory citations must be corrected on remand with proper authority cited.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“However, it does not appear that the appellant was given notice and an opportunity to be heard on this charge, as required under section 938.29(5). This assessment was therefore premature, and on remand the appellant should be given an opportunity to contest this charge.”
Establishes that the Public Defender fee assessment violated procedural requirements under Florida law by failing to provide notice and opportunity to be heard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClavelle was convicted of fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer. The trial court imposed multiple costs and assessments in connecti…
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 Appeal From Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant challenges her conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer, but she has not shown any error with regard to that conviction. The appellant also challenges the imposition of certain costs in connection with that conviction, and as the state acknowledges, several of the costs were imposed improperly.
Among other costs, the court imposed a $150 charge for the Public Defender fee, under section 938.29, Florida Statutes. However, it does not appear that the appellant was given notice and an opportunity to be heard on this charge, as required under section 938.29(5). This assessment was therefore premature, and on remand the appellant should be given an opportunity to contest this charge. See Vick v. State, 37 So.3d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Snowden v. State, 685 So.2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
The court also imposed a $50 assessment for the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund, and a $3 assessment for an Additional Court Cost Clearing Trust Fund, with the court citing sections 938.93 and 938.010, Florida Statutes. Those citations are inaccurate, and it appears that the court intended to make these assessments under section 983.03 and 938.01, Florida Statutes. On remand, the proper statutory authority should be cited for these assessments. See Snowden v. State, supra.
The court further imposed a “SOC IF 100” charge, without any explanation or citation of authority. On remand, the specific authority should be cited for this assessment. See Snowden v. State, supra.
The court imposed a $225 charge for a Local Government Criminal Justice Trust Fund, under section 938.05, Florida Statutes. The appellant’s offense was committed in May 2008, when the statute authorized only a $200 assessment. See § 938.05, Fla. Stat. (2007). On remand the court should reduce this charge to the $200 amount as authorized in the statute which was in effect on the date of the offense. See Torres v. State, 42 So.3d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
The court also imposed a $20 charge as “Additional Court Costs” for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund, under section 938.06, Florida Statutes, which provides that this assessment is to be made in “addition to any fine....” See § 938.06(1), Fla. Stat. However, the appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender without any fine, and because no fine was imposed this section 938.06 assessment may not be made. See Mallory v. State, 70 So.3d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Pullam v. State, 55 So.3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
The appellant’s conviction is affirmed. The costs addressed herein are vacated, and the case is remanded.
PADOYANO, LEWIS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leondray Kirkland v. State, 106 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
-
Laronald D. Spear v. State, 109 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
-
Derrell J. Chamblee v. State, 93 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clark v. State, 55 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Pullam v. State, 55 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Vick v. State, 37 So. 3d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Sterling S. Mallory v. State, 70 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Reynaldo Torres v. State, 42 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Snowden v. State, 685 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)