XAVIER TAYLOR, 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.
Taylor appealed his sentence, challenging the trial court's imposition of crime lab costs and public defender fees as conditions of probation. The appellate court affirmed the sentence overall but reversed and remanded the portions imposing these costs and fees because the trial court failed to follow required procedural steps, including oral pronouncements of discretionary costs and notice of the defendant's right to contest fees.
The court struck both the imposed crime lab costs and the public defender fee because the trial court failed to follow statutory procedures. The crime lab costs were to be remanded for imposition of the statutorily authorized amount of $100, and the public defender fee was to be remanded for either imposition of the statutorily authorized fee or an evidentiary hearing with proper notice.
[1] Statutorily mandated costs may be imposed without notice to the defendant, but discretionary costs require notice and an oral pronouncement of the basis for their imposit…
[2] Discretionary crime lab costs exceeding the statutory amount must be orally pronounced by the court, including the basis for the excess.
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“Costs cannot be assessed in a criminal case unless there is statutory authority for their imposition. Statutorily mandated costs may be imposed without notice to the defendant. However, the trial court is required to give the defendant notice of the imposition of discretionary costs and to make an oral pronouncement of such costs and their statutory basis.”
Establishes the statutory authority requirement and procedural steps for imposing costs in criminal cases, distinguishing between mandatory and discretionary costs.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaylor was sentenced to probation with conditions that included payment of crime lab costs of $166.80 and a public defender fee of $400.00. The crime …
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 Oral Pronouncement Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the circuit court’s sentence, but with two exceptions. The court erred by ordering the defendant to pay, as a condition of probation, crime lab costs of $166.80 and a public defender fee of $400.00, because the court did not follow the procedural steps for imposing such costs and fee. We address each in turn.
On the costs issue, as we stated in Finkelstein v. State, 944 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
Costs cannot be assessed in a criminal case unless there is statutory authority for their imposition. Statutorily mandated costs may be imposed without notice to the defendant. However, the trial court is required to give the defendant notice of the imposition of discretionary costs and to make an oral pronouncement of such costs and their statutory basis. If this does not occur, and discretionary costs are made a condition of probation, they are to be stricken, and cannot be re-imposed.
Id. at 1227 (internal citations, brackets, and quotation marks omitted). Here, the imposed crime lab costs exceeded the statutorily authorized amount of $100. See § 938.055, Fla. Stat. (2014). As such, the excess costs were discretionary and the court was required to make an oral pronouncement of such costs and the basis for exceeding the statutorily authorized amount. The court orally pronounced the costs, but did not orally pronounce the basis for exceeding the statutorily authorized amount. Accordingly, we strike the imposed crime lab costs and remand for imposition of the statutorily authorized amount of $100.
On the fee issue, the imposed public defender fee exceeded the statutorily authorized amount of $100. See § 938.29(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014). As such, the fee was discretionary and the court *701was required to inform the defendant of his right to contest the amount. See § 938.29(5), Fla. Stat. (2014); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.720(d)(1) (2014). The court did not inform the defendant of his right to contest the amount. Accordingly, we strike the imposed public defender fee and remand for either imposition of the statutorily authorized fee or an evidentiary hearing with notice to the defendant of his right to contest the amount. Brooks v. State, 199 So.3d 974, 976-77 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Warner, Gross and Gerber, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. State, 291 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…crime. § 938.055, Fla. Stat. (2019) (utilizing the word “shall” when mentioning this cost). As such, the trial court must impose a $100.00 cost pursuant to section 938.055 when the State uses a crime lab in its investigation. See Taylor v. State, 214 So. 3d 700, 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Any costs imposed in addition to that amount are discretionary and should be stricken if not orally pronounced. See id. (striking the imposition of an additional, but unannounced, $66.80 imposed along with the mandatory $…
-
Prentice v. State, 319 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Ladarius Brooks v. State, 199 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Finkelstein v. State, 944 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)