DOYLE CARTER, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed Carter's conviction and sentence but reversed the imposition of a $50 public defender lien and a probation condition requiring him to bear costs of random urinalysis drug testing because these costs were not orally pronounced at sentencing.
The trial court erred by including unannounced costs in the written judgment. A requirement that a defendant pay for drug testing is a special condition of probation that must be orally pronounced at sentencing. A public defender's fee cannot be imposed without notice and an opportunity to be heard to contest the amount. The unannounced conditions must be struck and cannot be reimposed on remand.
[1] A trial court commits a sentencing error by failing to orally pronounce the statutory authority for imposing a fine and surcharge.
[2] The imposition of costs under section 938.06, Florida Statutes, is contingent upon the lawful imposition of a fine.
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“[T]he requirement that a defendant [*194] pay for drug testing is a special condition of probation which the trial court must pronounce orally at sentencing.”
Establishes that drug testing costs must be orally pronounced at sentencing to be valid
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarter was convicted and sentenced. At sentencing, the trial court did not orally pronounce a $50 public defender lien or a special probation conditio…
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 Public Defender'S Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence in all respects, except the imposition of the $50 public defender lien and the special condition of appellant’s probation that he “bear the costs” of random urinalysis drug testing. Appellant challenged the imposition of these costs in a postsentenc-ing motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), on grounds that neither of these costs had been orally pronounced by the trial court at the time of sentencing.
We agree that the inclusion of these unannounced costs in the written judgment was error. See State v. Williams, 712 So. 2d 762, 764 (Fla.1998)(“[T]he requirement that a defendant pay for drug testing is a special condition of probation which the trial court must pronounce orally at sentencing.”); Dodson v. State, 710 So. 2d 159, 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)(“[A] public defender’s fee cannot be imposed without notice and an opportunity to be heard to contest the amount.”), opinion quashed on grounds that error had not been properly preserved, State v. Dodson, 760 So. 2d 145 (Fla.2000).
We, therefore, reverse the imposition of these costs and remand to the trial court with directions to strike the special condition of probation requiring appellant to “bear the costs” of the random urinalysis, and to allow appellant an opportunity to contest the imposition of the public defender lien. On remand, the trial court may not reimpose the special condition requiring appellant to pay for the urinalysis drug testing. See Justice v. State, 674 So. 2d 128, 126 (Fla.1996)(“[W]e hold that where a sentence is reversed because the trial court failed to orally pronounce certain special conditions of probation which later appeared in the written sentence, the court must strike the unannounced conditions and cannot reimpose them upon re-sentencing.”).
BOOTH, WOLF and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lang v. State, 856 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…affirmed. BARFIELD and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. . See Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89, 109 (Fla.2000) ("Presently, rule 3.800(b) provides [*1107] defendants with an opportunity to contest the erroneous imposition of costs.... ”); Carter v. State, 787 So. 2d 193, 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (reversing and remanding "to allow appellant an opportunity to contest the imposition of the public defender lien,” where lack of hearing at sentencing as to amount had been argued on motion under Rule 3.800(b)); see general…
-
Ladson v. State, 955 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…tions have previously been stricken when challenged on appeal. See, e.g., Crowley v. State, 813 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Miller v. State, 809 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Torres v. State, 712 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Carter v. State, 787 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). However, a defendant is able to raise an objection to such a condition by filing a motion pursuant to rule 3.800(b). Under this rule “a defendant has the opportunity to interpose a substantive objection to probation conditions…
-
Harder v. State, 14 So. 3d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…trial court may not impose a written order of probation that contradicts its prior oral pronouncement. Any difference between the trial court’s oral pronouncement and its written order is resolved in favor of the oral pronouncement. Carter v. State, 787 So. 2d 193, 193-94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). In the instant case, during the sentencing hearing, the trial court orally pronounced that the 1996 probation order would remain in full force and effect. In its written probation order, however, the trial court include…
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
- State v. Chuck Junior Williams, 712 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1998)
- Dodson v. State, 710 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- State v. Ezekias Mike, 760 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Dodson, 760 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 2000)