ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, 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.
Angel Rodriguez appeals the denial of his post-conviction motions challenging the imposition of a $200 public defender fee. The appellate court affirms the trial court's denial of most claims but reverses and remands the public defender fee issue because the trial court failed to properly establish that Rodriguez was advised of his right to contest the fee.
The appellate court held that Rodriguez's general response of "No, Sir" was insufficient to constitute a valid waiver of his right to challenge the public defender fee. The court reversed and remanded for the trial court to either attach records conclusively showing Rodriguez was advised of his right to contest the fee or conduct an evidentiary hearing on the matter.
[1] A defendant's general response of "No, Sir" to a question about challenging a public defender fee is insufficient to waive the right to contest the fee.
[2] A trial court must provide notice of a defendant's right to a hearing to contest the amount of a public defender lien at the time of sentencing.
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“When a public defender lien is imposed, '[n]otice of the accused's right to a hearing to contest the amount of the lien shall be given at the time of the sentence.' ... [I]t is error to impose such a lien without giving the defendant the required notice.”
Establishes the legal requirement for notice and opportunity to contest public defender fees at sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRodriguez was sentenced to 120 months in the Department of Corrections as a habitual violent felony offender. The trial court imposed $398 in court co…
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
Angel Rodriguez appeals the summary denial of the motions he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and 3.850. We affirm in all respects except one. Because the trial court failed to attach sufficient records to refute Rodriguez’s challenge to the imposition of a $200 public defender' fee, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of that issue.1
Rodriguez argues the trial court erroneously imposed a higher public defender fee without making any factual findings and without informing him that he could contest the fee. In denying this claim, the trial court concluded:
The claim regarding the $200 PD Rep Fee is conclusively refuted by the record. A review of the change of plea and sentencing hearing reveals that the Defendant was specifically asked if he will challenge the 200[sic] fee, but declined .... Thus, the first claim is without merit.
On the record before us, we are compelled to disagree.
“When a public defender lien is imposed, ‘[n]otice of the accused’s right to a hearing to contest the amount of the lien shall be given at the time of the sentence.’ ” Richie v. State, 777 So.2d 977, 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (alteration in original) (quoting Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.720(d)(1)), “[I]t is error to impose such a lien without giving the defendant the required notice.” Id. (citing Basham v. State, 695 So.2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)).
*462Here, the trial court relied on the following exchange when it denied Rodriguez’s claim.
THE COURT: I’m going to judge you [sic] be guilty of the offense. Sanction will be 120 months in the Department of Corrections as a habitual violent felony offender, (HVFO). This is a 10-year minimum mandatory, 120 months minimum mandatory. Credit for time served as may by applicable under the statute. 398 court costs, 250 Public Defender cost.
Do you have any challenge to the first $200 of that amount?
THE DEFENDANT: No, Sir. .
Without more, this type of general response is insufficient to waive a defendant’s right to challenge fees. See Norris v. State, 659 So.2d 1352, 1355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“When asked by the trial court if he had any objection to a lien of $100, Norris, replied that he did not. Nevertheless, we do not consider Norris’s response to be a valid waiver.”). Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of this claim and remand for attachment of records conclusively showing that Rodriguez was advised of his right to contest the fee or for an evidentiary hearing. See Lewis v. State, 629 So.2d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).2 In all other respects, we affirm.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
PALMER, ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crowder v. State, 313 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…l Procedure 3.850. See Lindquist v. State, 155 So. 3d 1193, 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (explaining that claim that trial court failed to advise appellant of his right to contest costs and fees may be raised in a rule 3.850 motion); Rodriguez v. State, 202 So. 3d 460, 461 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (explaining that appellant's challenge to trial court's failure to advise him of right to hearing to contest amount of public defender fees can be challenged under rule 3.850). Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice to…
-
Clark v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…order summarily denying appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion is affirmed without prejudice to appellant seeking relief in a timely motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Rodriguez v. State, 202 So. 3d 460, 461 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). We express no opinion regarding the merits of any such motion. Affirmed. WARNER, CIKLIN and ARTAU, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Townsend v. State, 604 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Lindquist v. State, 155 So. 3d 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Richie v. State, 777 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Norris v. State, 659 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Samori K. Walden v. State, 112 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Lewis v. State, 629 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Lewis v. State, 926 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Basham v. State, 695 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Headly Berry Edwards v. State, 59 So. 3d 335 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)