Carter v. State, 1D00-833.
| Decision Date | 15 May 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D00-833.,1D00-833. |
| Citation | 787 So.2d 193 |
| Parties | Doyle CARTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Fred Parker Bingham II, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Thomas D. Winokur, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.
We affirm appellant's conviction and sentence in all respects, except the imposition of the $50 public defender lien and the special condition of appellant's probation that he "bear the costs" of random urinalysis drug testing. Appellant challenged the imposition of these costs in a postsentencing motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), on grounds that neither of these costs had been orally pronounced by the trial court at the time of sentencing. We agree that the inclusion of these unannounced costs in the written judgment was error. See State v. Williams, 712 So.2d 762, 764 (Fla. 1998)
("[T]he requirement that a defendant pay for drug testing is a special condition of probation which the trial court must pronounce orally at sentencing."); Dodson v. State, 710 So.2d 159, 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)("[A] public defender's fee cannot be imposed without notice and an opportunity to be heard to contest the amount."), opinion quashed on grounds that error had not been properly preserved, State v. Dodson, 760 So.2d 145 (Fla.2000). We, therefore, reverse the imposition of these costs and remand to the trial court with directions to strike the special condition of probation requiring appellant to "bear the costs" of the random urinalysis, and to allow appellant an opportunity to contest the imposition of the public defender lien. On remand, the trial court may not reimpose the special condition requiring appellant to pay for the urinalysis drug testing. See Justice v. State, 674 So.2d 123, 126 (Fla. 1996)("[W]e hold that where a sentence is reversed because the trial court failed to orally pronounce certain special conditions of probation which later appeared in the written sentence, the court must strike the unannounced conditions and cannot reimpose them upon re-sentencing.").
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West v. State
...to a hearing to contest the amount, and remanding to allow the appellant an opportunity “to be heard on the fee.”); Carter v. State, 787 So.2d 193, 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (reversing and remanding “to allow appellant an opportunity to contest the imposition of the public defender lien,” whe......
-
Bowden v. State
... ... Hernandez's explanation [for strike] as disingenuous") ... In Carter v. State, 762 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), the defendant argued that a strike should not have been permitted because the State was wrong in its ... ...
-
Ladson v. State
...2d DCA 2002); Miller v. State, 809 So.2d 101 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Torres v. State, 712 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Carter v. State, 787 So.2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). However, a defendant is able to raise an objection to such a condition by filing a motion pursuant to rule 3.800(b). Under......
-
Burch v. State, 1D00-3801.
...the trial court must issue an amended written probation order, and it may not reimpose these special conditions. See Carter v. State, 787 So.2d 193, 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Justice, 674 So.2d at 125 We affirm as to the $1.00 per month payment to First Step, Inc., which is a statutory gener......