Newton v. State
| Decision Date | 28 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2D16-3559 |
| Citation | 262 So.3d 849 |
| Parties | Willie Mathers NEWTON, DOC #268531, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Terrence E. Kehoe, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Willie Mathers Newton appeals a judgment and sentence entered after a jury found him guilty of second-degree murder while discharging a firearm causing death. We disagree with Newton's argument that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and affirm the judgment and sentence without further comment.
Newton also appeals the judgment for costs and fines that, in pertinent part, imposes a $100 fee for the services of court-appointed conflict counsel. See § 938.29(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). We agree with Newton's argument that the trial court erred in denying his motion to correct sentencing error filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) because contrary to our precedent and to the plain language of rule 3.720(d)(1), read together with section 938.29(5), 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. See Gedehomme v. State, 160 So.3d 533, 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (); Neal v. State, 62 So.3d 1277, 1277-78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) ().1
Instead, the trial court determined that such notice was not required when imposing the statutory minimum of $100, relying on the First District's decision in Mills v. State, 177 So.3d 984, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (en banc) (). Because we have already held to the contrary, however, the trial court was not at liberty to do so. See also Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665, 666-67 (Fla. 1992) ( .2 Accordingly, we reverse the $100 fee, remand for further proceedings, and certify conflict with the First District's decision in Mills.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded; conflict certified.
1 We recognize that a challenge to the amount of the $100 fee would be unavailing because that is the statutory minimum fee that may be imposed. See § 938.29(1). But, read together, section 938.29(5) and rule 3.720 unequivocally require that a defendant be given...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T.R.C. v. State, Case No. 2D18-4295
...imposing a public defender fee, a trial court must first give a defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard. Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849, 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ; C.P. v. State, 31 So. 3d 976, 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). The State correctly concedes that T.R.C.'s motion to correct sente......
-
J.A.R. v. State
...fee for the services of the public defender without notifying him of his right to a hearing to contest the fee. In Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849, 849-50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), this court held that the trial court erred in imposing a $100 fee for the services of court-appointed conflict couns......
-
Crowder v. State
...310 So.3d 483, 483(Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 9. 2020) ; Jenkins v. State, 310 So.3d 464, 464 (Fla. 2d DCA June 5, 2020) ; Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849, 849-50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ; Gedehomme v. State, 160 So. 3d 533, 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ; Neal v. State, 62 So. 3d 1277, 1277-78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011......
-
J.S. v. State
...to be heard requires this court to reverse the imposition of the fee and remand for further proceedings. See, e.g., Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849, 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ; G.D. v. State, 42 So. 3d 327, 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).Here, the record shows that J.S. was never provided with either ......