Wilson v. State, 012221 FLCA2, 2D19-4461

Docket Nº:2D19-4461, 2D19-4463
Opinion Judge:BLACK, JUDGE.
Party Name:JAMES LAWRENCE WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Attorney:Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Daniel Muller, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Judge Panel:CASANUEVA and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.
Case Date:January 22, 2021
Court:Florida Court of Appeals, Second District

JAMES LAWRENCE WILSON, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Nos. 2D19-4461, 2D19-4463

Florida Court of Appeals, Second District

January 22, 2021

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Highlands County; Peter F. Estrada, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Daniel Muller, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

BLACK, JUDGE.

These appeals have been consolidated for purposes of this opinion. In appellate case no. 2D19-4461, James Wilson challenges his judgments and sentences in lower court case no. 19-CF-610. And in appellate case no. 2D19-4463, Wilson challenges his judgments and sentences in lower court case no. 19-CF-335. Wilson was ordered to pay public defender fees in the amount of $100 pursuant to section 938.29(1), Florida Statutes (2018), in each case. He was also ordered to pay investigative costs in each case pursuant to section 938.27(1). After filing the notices of appeal, Wilson filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) in each lower court case. Wilson asserted in the motions that the $100 public defender fees imposed pursuant to section 938.29 must be stricken due to the trial court's failure to advise him of his right to contest the fees at a hearing as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1) and Newton v. State, 262 So.3d 849, 849-50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). Wilson also argued that the investigative costs imposed pursuant to section 938.27(1) must be stricken. The trial court denied the motions.

Counsel filed a brief in each appellate case pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the trial court erred in denying the motions to correct sentencing errors. See Hamiter v. State, 290 So.3d 1003, 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (stating that counsel may challenge a trial court's denial of a rule 3.800(b) motion to correct minor sentencing errors, such as errors concerning costs and fees, in an Anders "no merit" brief).1 Counsel's contentions with regard to the investigative costs are without merit and do not warrant further comment. However, we agree that the trial court erred in denying Wilson's motions to correct sentencing errors to the extent...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP