Joshua Jermaine Neal v. State
| Decision Date | 22 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D09–5439.,2D09–5439. |
| Parties | Joshua Jermaine NEAL, Appellant,v.STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Carol J.Y. Wilson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Dawn A. Tiffin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.DAVIS, Judge.
Joshua Jermaine Neal challenges the revocation of the probation that he had been serving on one count of felon in possession of a firearm. We affirm the revocation of Neal's probation without comment. However, because the record before us indicates an error in the imposition of a public defender's lien and an error on the face of the revocation order, we reverse the lien and remand for correction of the errors.
The transcript of the sentencing hearing indicates that the trial court did not give Neal notice of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of the $100 public defender's lien that was imposed as part of his sentence.1 This was error. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.720(d)(1) (). As such, we reverse the imposition of the public defender's lien and remand to the trial court with instructions to strike the lien and afford Neal the opportunity to properly object to the amount imposed. See Vick v. State, 37 So.3d 951, 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
Additionally, the revocation order contains an error on its face in that it indicates that Neal admitted the alleged violations of his probation. This is incorrect as a hearing was held on the allegations. On remand, the trial court also shall correct this scrivener's error.
Neal's appellate counsel also points out that it appears that the trial court's fee order does not comport with its oral imposition of fees at the sentencing hearing. At sentencing, the trial court orally announced the imposition of the following fees: $100 “cost of prosecution associated with the hearing on your violation, $50 application fee for the Public Defender and [$100] for the attorney's fee of the Public Defender.” At first blush it does appear that the written fee order contradicts the oral pronouncement by imposing a $300 “Public Defender Assistant Fee” and a $200 “Prosecution/Investigative costs” fee. However, the written revocation order properly reflects the imposition of these costs at $100 each. Our review of the record indicates that the written fee order entered upon revocation of probation simply adds these $100 amounts to the costs previously imposed when Neal was originally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crowder v. State
...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). However, the improper imposition of a public defender fee "does not constitute fundamental error" but rather is a sen......
-
Davis v. State
...2d DCA 2018). On remand, the trial court shall afford Mr. Davis the opportunity to object to the amount imposed. See Neal v. State, 62 So. 3d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. MORRIS, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., ...
-
J.W. v. State
...opportunity for J.W. to be heard on that issue. 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). In his motion, J.W. also challenged the imposition of $150 for the cost of prosecution. However, because J.W. did not o......
-
Newton v. State
...$100 public defender fee but only after proper notice and the opportunity for Gedehomme to be heard on that issue"); Neal v. State, 62 So.3d 1277, 1277-78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding that the trial court erred in failing to "give Neal notice of his right to a hearing to contest the amount o......
-
Judgment and sentence
...reenters the fees and costs previously imposed is not error when the re-imposed fees are not announced at the hearing. Neal v. State, 62 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) The court errs in entering a sentencing order imposing costs and fees citing outdated statutes (See this case for a list of......