E. C. T.
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.
A trial court errs by imposing costs under section 939.185(1)(a) when adjudication is withheld rather than adjudicated, and by imposing a public defender fee under section 938.29(1)(a) without providing notice of the right to contest and an opportunity to be heard.
[1] Section 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statutes, authorizing the imposition of additional court costs for a person adjudicated delinquent does not permit such costs when adjudica…
[2] A trial court errs by imposing a public defender fee under section 938.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, without providing the defendant notice of the right to contest the fee…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“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.”
Court's reasoning on the $1 fee issue
E.C.T., a juvenile, committed the delinquent act of burglary of an occupied dwelling. The trial court withheld adjudication, placed E.C.T. on probatio…
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 Delinquent Act cases and more on FLexlaw
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
E.C.T., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-4332 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) )
Opinion filed September 4, 2020.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michael J. Scionti, Judge.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Daniel Muller, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and C. Todd Chapman, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge.
E.C.T. appeals a disposition order that withholds adjudication and places him on juvenile probation for a period not to exceed his nineteenth birthday for committing the delinquent act of burglary of an occupied dwelling. We affirm in all respects except we reverse the imposition of certain fees and remand for further proceedings.
First, E.C.T. argues, and the State properly concedes, that the trial court erred by imposing a $1 fee pursuant to section 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2018).
That statute authorizes the imposition of additional court costs "not to exceed $65 . . .
when a person . . . is . . . adjudicated 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 defender pursuant to section 938.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2018), without providing him with notice of his right to contest the fee and an opportunity to be heard. We agree and reverse the imposition of the $100 fee. See
Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849, 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (holding that the trial court erred by "fail[ing] to give Newton notice of his right to a hearing to contest the $100 fee when pronouncing its imposition at sentencing"). On remand, the court may reimpose the $100 fee after proper notice and the opportunity for E.C.T. to be heard on that issue.
See id.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
- R.F. v. State, 42 So. 3d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- H. R. v. State, 277 So. 3d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)