TARZMYN D. FORBES, 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 Fourth District reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to enter a written order revoking probation and failed to provide proper notice before imposing public defender fees.
A trial court must enter a written order revoking probation and must provide notice and opportunity to object before imposing public defender fees.
[1] A trial court must enter a written order revoking probation that conforms to and documents the oral pronouncement of violation.
[2] A trial court must provide notice and opportunity to object before assessing public defender fees pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1).
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Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceForbes's probation was revoked orally by the trial court, and public defender fees were imposed without proper notice or opportunity to object.…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.720(D)(1) cases and more on FLexlaw
The State concedes that the trial court erred by failing to enter a written order revoking Defendant’s probation. Recent decisions of this court support that concession. See Oertel v. State, 82 So.3d 152, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“[Ajlthough the trial court orally pronounced the violation of probation, it did not enter a written order.”); King v. State, 46 So.3d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“If a trial court revokes a defendant’s probation, the court is required to render a written order noting the specific conditions of probation that were violated.”). The State also concedes that Defendant was not afforded proper notice of the public defender fee, which was later imposed. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1), Defendant was to have been given notice of the opportunity to object to the amount assessed for public defender’s fees. See also Ciccia v. State, 854 So.2d 243, 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
Accordingly, we reverse and direct the trial court to strike the public defender’s fee without prejudice to being re-imposed on remand after the proper procedure is followed. We further remand to provide the trial court the opportunity to enter a written order with respect to the revocation of Defendant’s probation and to conform such written order to the trial court’s oral pronouncement.
WARNER, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chambers v. State, 217 So. 3d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…der section 938.29(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2015), because the trial court did not give appellant notice of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of the lien and make factual findings supporting the higher amount of fees. See Forbes v. State, 127 So. 3d 826, 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Maestas v. State, 76 So. 3d 991, 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). We reverse on this issue and direct the trial court to strike the $2,000 lien for indigent defense fees without prejudice to re-imposing the lien on remand “after th…
-
Thomas v. State, 159 So. 3d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…clear that the trial court would have still revoked probation solely on the proper violations of community control). The State concedes that the trial court erred by failing to enter a written order revoking Thomas’ probation. See Forbes v. State, 127 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). We therefore remand for entry of a written order that conforms with the trial court’s oral pronouncement only as to Thomas’ willful and substantial violation of his probation for committing the new offense of aggravated battery.…
Authorities Cited
- Ira C. King, III v. State, 46 So. 3d 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Oertel v. State, 82 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Ciccia v. State, 854 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)