Trice v. State, 94-00355
| Decision Date | 02 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-00355,94-00355 |
| Citation | 655 So.2d 1270 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1319 George TRICE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Cynthia J. Dodge, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Anne Y. Swing, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
George Trice seeks review of sentencing issues in connection with his plea of nolo contendere to three counts of armed robbery. We affirm his habitual felony offender sentencing, but reverse the trial court's orders imposing fees for court-appointed counsel and restitution.
Where the state has introduced unrebutted evidence of the defendant's prior convictions, the court's failure to make the requisite findings of fact required by section 775.084(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), is harmless error. Herrington v. State, 643 So.2d 1078 (Fla.1994); State v. Rucker, 613 So.2d 460 (Fla.1993). Because the unrebutted evidence here warrants sentencing under the habitual felony offender statute, any error is harmless.
We agree, however, with the appellant that the order imposing attorney's fees pursuant to section 27.56(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), must be reversed because the fees were assessed without affording him the opportunity to object to the amount of the assessment. See Wilson v. State, 651 So.2d 1302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Farmer v. State, 617 So.2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Bourque v. State, 595 So.2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). On remand, Mr. Trice shall have thirty days from the date of the mandate within which to file a written objection to the amount assessed. If an objection is filed with the trial court, the assessment shall be stricken and a new assessment shall not be imposed without notice and hearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1).
The appellant is also correct concerning the lack of notice or opportunity to be heard on the amount of the restitution award. See Massie v. State, 635 So.2d 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Winborn v. State, 625 So.2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). We, therefore, reverse the restitution award and remand for a new restitution hearing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington v. State
...to a hearing to contest the amount of the lien" as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1), see Trice v. State, 655 So.2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Washington's challenge to several probationary conditions is resolved by State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589 (Fla.1996). In th......
-
Augustin v. State
...until appellant is afforded notice and hearing in compliance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1). Trice v. State, 655 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We also conclude that the trial court erred in imposing written conditions of probation requiring appellant to pay for the cos......
-
Stombaugh v. State, 97-921
...but apparently failed to do so. On remand, the amount should be determined after notice and hearing to set the amount. Trice v. State, 655 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The state must prove the actual amount of the loss. Hamrick v. State, 648 So.2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); § 775.089(7), Fl......
-
Jones v. State, 96-03687
...an objection, the lower court must strike the lien and it may not impose a new assessment without notice and a hearing. Trice v. State, 655 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Bourque v. State, 595 So.2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA Convictions affirmed, remanded for further proceedings on the court's impos......