H. R.
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
# Legal Brief: H.R. v. State of Florida The court affirmed a juvenile's adjudication withholding and probation sentence for first-degree misdemeanor battery but reversed two cost assessments: (1) a $3 teen court fee, which is not authorized when adjudication is withheld, and (2) a $100 representation cost assessment, which was imposed without providing the juvenile notice and opportunity to contest the costs as required by statute.
[1] A teen court cost assessment is not authorized when adjudication has been withheld.
[2] A cost of representation assessment requires notice to the defendant of their right to contest the costs.
Previewing 2 of 3 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© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Withheld Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
H.R., a juvenile, seeks review of an order withholding adjudication and placing her on probation for first-degree misdemeanor battery. We affirm the order on appeal with the exception of two cost assessments. First, we reverse the $3 assessment for teen court imposed pursuant to section 938.19(2), Florida Statutes (2017), and Polk County Ordinance 07-042 because the cost is not authorized when adjudication has been withheld. See F.F. v. State, 218 So. 3d 455, 456 (Fla. 4th DCA
2017). Second, we reverse the $100 assessment for costs of representation imposed pursuant to sections 938.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2017), and 27.52(1)(b), Florida
Statutes (2017), because H.R. did not receive notice of her right to contest these costs as required by section 938.29(5). See J.S. v. State, 277 So. 3d 270, 276 (Fla. 2d DCA
2019); Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849, 849-50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). On remand, the court may reimpose these costs of representation after providing notice and the opportunity to be heard. See J.S., 277 So. 3d at 276.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and LaROSE, JJ., Concur. -2-
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
H. R. v. State, 277 So. 3d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…resentation imposed pursuant to sections 938.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2017), and 27.52(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2017), because H.R. did not receive notice of her right to contest these costs as required by section 938.29(5). See J.S. v. State, 277 So. 3d 270, 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849, 849-50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). On remand, the court may reimpose these costs of representation after providing notice and the opportunity to be heard. See J.S., 277 So. 3d at 276.…
-
A. C. v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…da Statutes (2016),] the court had failed to give Newton notice of his right to a hearing to contest the $100 fee when pronouncing its imposition at sentencing." We applied the same reasoning in the context of juvenile delinquency in J.S. v. State, 277 So. 3d 270, 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). We decline the State's request to recede from Newton. The State asks us to adopt the contrary reasoning set forth by the First District in Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (en banc). But we have repeatedl…
-
E. C. T. v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…udicated delinquent." See id. Because section 939.185(1)(a) authorizes such costs only when a juvenile is adjudicated delinquent, it does not authorize the imposition of costs when, as in this case, adjudication is withheld. See J.S. v. State, 277 So. 3d 270, 275-76 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); R.F. v. State, 42 So. 3d 333, 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Accordingly, we reverse the imposition of the $1 fee. Second, E.C.T. argues that the trial court erred by imposing a $100 fee for the services of the public defen…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
- H. R. v. State, 277 So. 3d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
- F.F. v. State, 218 So. 3d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)