DARRIN LEE CARMICHAEL, 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.
Appellant was convicted of burglary of an occupied dwelling and grand theft of a motor vehicle. While affirming the convictions, the court reversed certain financial obligations imposed without notice and hearing, including a public defender lien, fine, and surcharge, and remanded for reimposition following proper procedures.
The trial court erred in imposing the $300 public defender lien, $200 fine, and $10 surcharge without giving Appellant notice and an opportunity to be heard. These amounts must be reversed and may be reimposed only after providing proper notice and procedures. The prison releasee reoffender designation must be clarified to apply only to Count 1 (burglary of an occupied dwelling).
[1] A trial court must provide a defendant with notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposing a public defender lien amount beyond the statutory minimum.
[2] A discretionary fine imposed under section 775.083(1), Florida Statutes, requires notice, an opportunity to be heard, and specific pronouncement at the sentencing hearing…
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 erred in imposing a $300 public defender lien pursuant to sections 27.562 and 938.29, Florida Statutes, a $200 fine pursuant to section 775.083(1), Florida Statutes, and a $10 surcharge pursuant to section 938.04, Florida Statutes, without giving Appellant notice and an opportunity to be heard”
Establishes the core error reviewed on appeal regarding financial obligations imposed without proper procedure
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDarrin Lee Carmichael was convicted of burglary of an occupied dwelling and grand theft of a motor vehicle. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a $…
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 Discretionary Fines cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), of a judgment and sentence for burglary of an occupied dwelling and grand theft of a motor vehicle. We affirm Appellant’s convictions without discussion. However, as the State correctly concedes, the trial court erred in imposing a $300 public defender lien pursuant to sections 27.562 and 938.29, Florida Statutes, a $200 fine pursuant to section 775.083(1), Florida Statutes, and a $10 surcharge pursuant to section 938.04, Florida Statutes, without giving Appellant notice and an opportunity to be heard. See § 938.29(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014) (mandating a $100 minimum public defender lien per felony case); § 27.52(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014) (mandating a $50 application fee); § 775.083(1), Fla. Stat. (2014) (authorizing the imposition of fines); § 938.04, Fla. Stat. (2014) (providing for a court cost of a five-percent surcharge); Odom v. State, 187 So.3d 324, 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (explaining that “[p]ursuant to sections *641938.29(1)(a) and 27.52, the Legislature has required the imposition of a minimum fee of $100 for- the assistance of the public defender’s office and a $50 application fee. A notice and hearing are not required before imposition of this minimum lien amount”; however, a trial court is required to give the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposing a lien amount beyond the minimum); Mills v. State, 177 So.3d 984, 985-88 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (en banc) (explaining that the fíne authorized by section 775.083(1) is discretionary and.its imposition thus requires notice, an opportunity to be heard, and specific pronouncement at the sentencing hearing and that the surcharge imposed pursuant to section 938.04 must also be reversed when the fine is reversed). Accordingly, we reverse the $300 public defender lien, the $200 fíne, and the $10 surcharge and remand with directions that the trial court may reimpose these costs after providing notice to Appellant and following the proper procedures. Lastly, we direct the trial court to clarify in the written sentence that Appellant’s designation as a prison releasee reoffender applies only to the offense of burglary of an occupied dwelling (Count 1)'.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with directions.
ROBERTS, C.J., LEWIS, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 236 So. 3d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…stigative Cost pursuant to section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes. The State correctly concedes that the discretionary fines and surcharges were not specifically pronounced at sentencing and therefore must [*1161] be stricken. See Carmichael v. State , 192 So. 3d 640, 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) ; Mills v. State , 177 So. 3d 984, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). On remand, the trial court may strike the fine and surcharge in each case and enter a corrected judgment and sentence, or may reimpose them after following the prop…
-
Anderson v. State, 247 So. 3d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Trusty v. State, 210 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…gher amount “upon a showing of sufficient proof of higher fees or costs incurred,” a trial court is required to give the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to imposing a fee in excess of the statutory minimum. Carmichael v. State, 192 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Here, because Trusty was not given notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the discretionary portion of the assessment, it must be stricken. On remand, the court may reimpose this cost after complying with the proper pro…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Odom v. State, 187 So. 3d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)