JORDAN ERIC PRUITT, 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 appellate court affirmed Jordan Eric Pruitt's conviction and sentence but reversed and remanded on the issue of costs imposed. The court struck three costs—an indigent legal assistance lien, sheriff's investigatory costs, and a cost under section 938.06—finding procedural defects in their imposition.
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence but reversed and remanded regarding the costs. The $150 indigent legal assistance lien must be struck because the appellant was not given notice of his right to a hearing to contest it. The $100 Sheriff's Investigatory Cost must be struck because the state did not request it on the record. The $20 cost under section 938.06 must be struck because no fine was imposed.
[1] A lien for indigent legal assistance may be stricken if the appellant is not provided notice of their right to a hearing to contest the amount of the lien.
[2] A trial court must advise a defendant of its intent to impose a public defender fee and their right to a hearing to contest its imposition.
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“Notice of the accused's right to a hearing to contest the amount of the lien shall be given at the time of sentence.”
Establishes the procedural requirement under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1) that supports striking the indigent legal assistance lien.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJordan Eric Pruitt was convicted in the trial court. At sentencing, the trial court imposed three costs that were not properly authorized or for which…
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 Indigent Legal Assistance Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal in which the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We affirm the appellant’s conviction and sentence with the exception of certain costs imposed.
We strike the $150 indigent legal assistance lien imposed, because the appellant was not given notice of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of this lien. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.720(d)(1) (“Notice of the accused’s right to a hearing to contest the amount of the lien shall be given at the time of sentence.”); McCarthan v. State, 91 So.3d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ([W]e strike the $100 indigent legal assistance lien imposed, since the appellant was not given notice of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of this lien.). On re*232mand, if the trial court wishes to impose the public defender fee it must advise the appellant of its intent to do so and his right to a hearing to contest imposition of that fee. See Vaughn v. State, 65. So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
Additionally, we strike the $100 “Sheriffs Investigatory Cost” as it was not requested by the state. See Parker v. State, 44 So.3d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“With respect to the investigatory costs, there is no record indication that the State requested or demonstrated these costs as required under the statute. Accordingly, the Sheriffs Investigatory Cost ... must be stricken.”); Hills v. State, 90 So.3d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“Because section 938.27(8) does not pertain to ‘investigative costs’ of law enforcement agencies such as the Sheriffs Office, the requirement that such costs be requested on the record and subjected to argument regarding the amount remains.”). On remand, the state may not seek to reimpose these costs because they were not requested. See Vaughn v. State, 65 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
Finally, we strike the imposition of the $20 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2010), because no fine was imposed. See Pullam v. State, 55 So.3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the appellant’s judgment and sentence in part, but we REVERSE AND REMAND in part for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WOLF, VAN NORTWICK, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Laronald D. Spear v. State, 109 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…12); Pruitt v. State, 98 So. 3d 235, 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Pruitt v. State, 98 So. 3d 234, 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Pruitt v. State, 98 So. 3d 233, 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Pruitt v. State, 98 So. 3d 232, 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Pruitt v. State, 98 So. 3d 231, 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). In doing so, we cited to our Pullam opinion, which addressed section 938.06 prior to the amendment. One day after the Pruitt decisions were issued, we set forth as dicta in Sanders v. State, 101 So. 3d 373, 377 n. 3 (Fla. 1…
-
Averitt McKENZIE v. State, 164 So. 3d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…nsel was ineffective for failure to challenge the assessment of a $100 “sheriffs office investigative cost” where that cost was not requested, documented, subjected to argument concerning the amount, or orally pronounced. See, e.g., Pruitt v. State, 98 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), receded from on other grounds by Spear v. State, [*128] 109 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (en banc). On this basis, we grant the petition, and concluding that a new appeal concerning this limited issue is unnecessary, we remand…
-
Perez v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Jamarl Vaughn v. State, 65 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Dwon Parker v. State, 44 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Clark v. State, 55 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Pullam v. State, 55 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- McCARTHAN v. State, 91 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Hills v. State, 90 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Jackson v. State, 90 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)