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.
Jordan Eric Pruitt appealed his conviction and sentence on grounds that certain costs were improperly imposed. The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence but reversed and remanded to strike three categories of costs—an indigent legal assistance lien, investigatory costs, and a cost imposed without a corresponding fine—because they lacked proper statutory compliance or notice.
The court held that the $150 indigent legal assistance lien must be struck because the appellant was not given notice of his right to a hearing to contest the amount; the $100 Sheriff's Investigatory Cost must be struck because it was not requested by the state on the record; and the $20 cost under section 938.06 must be struck because no fine was imposed.
[1] A lien for indigent legal assistance imposed without notice of the right to a hearing to contest the amount must be stricken.
[2] Investigatory costs imposed against a defendant must be stricken if the state did not request or demonstrate them on the record.
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 for imposing indigent legal assistance liens that was violated in this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePruitt was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a $150 indigent legal assistance lien, a $100 She…
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.
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 remand, if the trial court wishes to impose the public defender fee it must advise the appellant of its intent to do so and his *233right 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 236, 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); 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 di…
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)