Lee v. State, 4D99-3527.
Decision Date | 25 April 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 4D99-3527.,4D99-3527. |
Citation | 785 So.2d 603 |
Parties | William Jordan LEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida and Palm Beach County, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Arthur B. D'Almeida of Arthur B. D'Almeida, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.
Kathleen M. Scarlett, Assistant County Attorney, Palm Beach County Attorney's Office, West Palm Beach, for appellee Palm Beach County.
William Lee appeals from a final judgment assessing costs and imposing a lien entered following his conviction for first degree murder with a firearm. Appellant argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction or authority to assess costs against him and impose a lien against his property.
On December 2, 1997, William Lee, appellant, was indicted for first degree murder with a firearm. Appellant was represented by private counsel throughout the proceedings below. On June 25, 1998, appellant filed an unopposed motion to be declared indigent for costs, pursuant to section 914.11, Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(o). On June 26, 1998, the trial court granted appellant's motion to be declared indigent for costs and authorized appellant's counsel to expend county funds for the purpose of taking depositions.
The county is required to pay certain costs associated with a legal defense, including the costs of discovery, when a defendant is unable to pay those costs. See §§ 914.11, 939.15 Fla.Stat. (1997); Fla. R.Crim.Pro. 3.220(o). See also Price v. Mounts, 421 So.2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
; Saintil v. Snyder, 417 So.2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Johnson v. Snyder, 417 So.2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Guy v. State, 473 So.2d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)(defendant represented by a private attorney) that the county is required to pay the reasonable costs of defending an indigent .
Appellant was convicted of first degree murder with a firearm. On March 16, 1999, appellant filed an appeal from his judgment of conviction with this court. On May 3, 2000, this court filed its decision per curiam affirming his conviction.
On April 27, 1999, Appellant's counsel filed a motion for assessment of costs against appellant pursuant to section 27.56, Florida Statutes. The motion asserted that costs had been expended on behalf of appellant in the amount of $6,753.43.
On April 27, 1999, the trial court entered an order pursuant to section 27.56, assessing costs in the amount of $6,753.43 for services provided by appellant's counsel and imposing a lien in the same amount in the name of Palm Beach County against any and all real property owned or subsequently acquired by appellant. The trial court noted in the order that, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720, appellant was given notice of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of the lien. The trial court denied appellant's motion for relief from judgment assessing costs and imposing a lien.
Following his conviction, the trial court assessed costs against appellant pursuant to section 27.56. However, at the time, section 27.56 was amended and renumbered as section 938.29, Florida Statutes (1997). Section 938.29, Florida Statutes (1997), provides in part:
(Emphasis added).
Appellant argues that a plain reading of section 938.29, Florida Statutes (1997), does not give the trial court authority to assess costs against a defendant who was represented by a privately retained attorney and impose a lien against his property. We agree.
When the language of a statute is clear, unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no need to resort to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woods v. State, 5D02-2965.
...regarding this issue. The Fourth District Court has adopted the view that jurisdiction remains with the trial court. See Lee v. State, 785 So.2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Wyatt v. State, 652 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The Second District Court adopts the view that the trial court is dive......
-
State v. Lebrun
...to the rules of statutory interpretation and construction; the statute is given its plain and obvious meaning." Lee v. State , 785 So. 2d 603, 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citing McLaughlin v. State , 721 So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Fla. 1998) ; Holly v. Auld , 450 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla. 1984) ).The tria......
-
Houle v. State Of Fla.
...this fee. “Absent statutory authority, courts do not have the power to assess costs against a defendant upon conviction.” Lee v. State, 785 So.2d 603, 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The State concedes error on this point. Accordingly, we strike the $135 DUI assessment without prejudice and remand......