PORTER HANKERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this Anders appeal of nine consolidated criminal cases, the court affirmed all convictions and sentences but found error in the assessment of court costs. The court struck provisions imposing $1,000 in arbitrary costs and $17 in statutory costs that were assessed without proper notice and opportunity to be heard, remanding for redetermination of costs in accordance with statutory requirements.
The court affirmed all convictions and sentences but held that the trial court improperly assessed all court costs without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard as required by statute. The court struck all provisions assessing court costs and remanded for redetermination of costs after proper notice and hearing to ensure costs are related to actual expenses incurred.
[1] A trial court must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before assessing court costs against a defendant.
[2] Court costs assessed against a defendant must be based on actual or estimated costs incurred, not an arbitrary figure.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court imposed additional court costs of $1,000. These costs were apparently assessed pursuant to section 27.56, Florida Statutes (1983), and were entered without the notice and opportunity to be heard required by the statute.”
Establishes that the arbitrary $1,000 costs were assessed without procedurally required notice and hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Hankerson was convicted in nine consolidated cases. In cases CF84-47 and CR82-156, the trial court imposed additional court costs of $1,000 …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Court Costs Assessment cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
In this Anders
appeal we find no reversible error in any of appellant’s nine consolidated cases and therefore affirm all of his convictions and sentences. Nevertheless, we do find error in the assessment of costs entered against appellant in his judgments.
In two of appellant’s cases, No. CF84-47 and No. CR82-156, the trial court imposed additional court costs of $1,000. These costs were apparently assessed pursuant to section 27.56, Florida Statutes (1983), and were entered without the notice and opportunity to be heard required by the statute. Furthermore, in each case the $1,000 amount appears to be set as an arbitrary figure unrelated to any estimated or actual costs incurred for appellant’s defense. Accordingly, we strike each provision assessing the $1,000 payment and remand for a determination of actual costs after considering those costs allowed by law and upon due notice and hearing. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984); Scott v. State, 459 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Drumm v. State, 432 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
We also find that in each judgment appellant was ordered to pay $15 pursuant to section 960.20 (Crimes Compensation Trust Fund) and $2 pursuant to section 943.25(4) (Law Enforcement Training and Correctional Officer Training Trust Funds). Of course, these costs may properly be assessed upon due notice and hearing. Jenkins, Drumm. However, in this case, no notice was given and appellant was given no opportunity to object. Thus the trial court improperly assessed these costs, disregarding the requirements of section 27.- 56(7), Florida Statutes (1983). Consequently, we strike that part of each judgment assessing payment of these costs and remand for a hearing in accordance with the requirements of Jenkins.
Summarizing, we strike all provisions which order payment of court costs in each of appellant’s nine judgments and remand without prejudice to reassess these costs after proper notice and hearing. In all other respects the convictions and sentences are affirmed.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gilchrist v. State, 674 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…l court entered judgment for a $1,000 public defender fee. See § 27.56, Fla.Stat. (1993). As defense counsel argues, the record contains no basis for the $1,000 fee — nothing reveals the hourly rate or time spent on the case. See Hankerson v. State, 464 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (attorney’s fees must be based on estimated or actual costs, not arbitrarily imposed). In addition, Gilchrist had no prior notice of the amount of attorney’s fees or notice at sentencing of his right to contest the fees; thus, we…
-
Gonse v. State, 713 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…mposing certain costs. The trial court improperly imposed a $1,000 public defender lien without any indication of defense counsel’s hourly rate or time spent on the case. See Gilchrist v. State, 674 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Hankerson v. State, 464 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Second, the trial court failed to inform Gonse at sentencing, as Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1) requires, “of the imposition of a lien pursuant to section 27.56, Florida Statutes” and of the defendant’s “right to…
-
Scurry v. State, 490 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…lant had been declared indigent, and therefore was entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard before the imposition of these sums. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984); Mims v. State, 470 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Hankerson v. State, 464 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Lastly, the court’s imposition of both a fine, to be paid to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund, and restitution to the worker’s compensation carrier was not erroneous. Section 960.13, Florida Statutes (1983), provides that any…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Drumm v. State, 432 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Shipman v. State, 459 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Scott v. State, 459 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)