MALLORY WRIGHT, 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.
The court affirmed the trial court's evidentiary rulings but reversed the sentencing order because the defendant was denied notice and opportunity to contest the public defender's lien and the crime lab assessment fee lacked statutory authority.
A trial court must provide notice and an opportunity to contest the amount of a public defender's lien, and any costs imposed in a criminal case must be supported by specific statutory authority.
[1] A trial court must provide prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before assessing a public defender's lien against a defendant.
[2] Costs imposed in criminal cases must be supported by specific statutory authority; costs lacking statutory citation must be deleted or remanded for identification of appl…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMallory Wright appealed a conviction, raising four issues including challenges to cross-examination, expert witness jury instructions, and two sentenc…
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 Sentencing Review cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Of the four issues raised by appellant, Mallory Wright, we affirm the first two concerning the state’s cross-examination of appellant and the expert witness jury instruction, because neither issue was preserved for appellate review.
We reverse, however, the two sentencing issues for the following reasons. First, appellant was not afforded notice and an opportunity to object to the amount of the public defender’s lien. See L.A.D. v. State, 616 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1st DCA) (where trial court failed to provide prior notice of right to a hearing to contest the amount of lien, assessment of lien was reversed and case remanded for purpose of allowing appellant notice and opportunity to contest amount), review denied, 624 So. 2d 268 (Fla.1993). Accord Buiey v. State, 583 So. 2d 384, 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Gant v. State, 640 So. 2d 1180, 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Second, no statutory authority was provided for the imposition of the $100 cost for a crime lab assessment fee. The law is clear that recovery and allowance of costs in criminal cases must be authorized by statute. Masters v. State, 358 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Because the order does not point to any specific statutory authority allowing for recovery, the order is reversed and remanded for reference to the applicable statute or for deletion of the unsupported cost. See Thomas v. State, 633 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 640 So. 2d 1109 (Fla.1994); Williams v. State, 596 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED for further proceedings.
MINER and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryant v. State, 661 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…with directions to advise defendant [*1317] of his right to a hearing and, if a hearing is requested, to set one pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1). See Peterson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Wright v. State, 654 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Buiey v. State, .583 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). With regard to restitution, the prosecutor orally announced at sentencing a restitution amount of $120 plus $18. The trial court then orally ordered restitution in the amount…
-
Thelonious W. Kirby v. State, 658 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…Kirby notice of the amount of the fees imposed, as well as notice of the right to a hearing to contest that amount, as required under section 27.56(7), Florida Statutes (1993), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1). See Wright v. State, 654 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); L.A.D. v. State, 616 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 624 So. 2d 268 (Fla.1993); Buiey v. State, 583 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, we REVERSE the imposition of the fees and remand to allow Kirby notice and…
-
McCRAY v. State, 665 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…sition of the cost is illegal. We agree. Although the trial judge cited statutory authority in his oral pronouncement at sentencing, that authority was not included in the written order. The issue in this case is similar to that in Wright v. State, 654 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). This court in Wright said: The law is clear that recovery and allowance of costs in criminal cases must be authorized by statute. Because the order does not point to any specific statutory authority allowing for recovery, the o…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In the Interest of L.A.D. v. State, 616 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Williams v. State, 596 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Brown v. State, 583 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Arjomand v. Alec J. Ross, 633 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Lenthius Daryl Thomas v. State, 633 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Gant v. State, 640 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Masters v. State, 358 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)