Christopher Vandawalker v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledDecember 1, 2021
Docket2D18-4977
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
CHRISTOPHER VANDAWALKER,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D18-4977
December 1, 2021
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Charles E.
Roberts, Judge.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Tosha Cohen, Assistant
Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lindsay D.
Turner, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
SLEET, Judge.
This case is before us on remand from the Florida Supreme
Court, which quashed this court's opinion in Vandawalker v. State,
310 So. 3d 483 (Fla. 2020), and remanded it to this court for
reconsideration in light of its decision in State v. J.A.R., 318 So. 3d
1256 (Fla. 2021). Although this court originally reversed the
imposition of the $100 statutory minimum public defender fee, the
Florida Supreme Court has since held that "[w]hen imposing the
statutory minimum, the trial court need not announce the
imposition of the public defender's fee or inform the defendant of a
right to contest the fee." J.A.R., 318 So. 3d at 1259. Accordingly,
we now affirm the imposition of the $100 public defender fee. On
remand, the trial court should reimpose the $100 public defender
fee if it has not already done so. Vandawalker need not be present
for the reimposition of the fee.
Additionally, as a condition of probation, the trial court
ordered Vandawalker to pay $100 for the costs of prosecution.
Vandawalker preserved this issue in a motion to correct sentencing
error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).
As we did in our first opinion, we reverse the imposition of the
prosecution costs. The plain language of section 938.27(1), Florida
2
Statutes (2018), requires that prosecution costs be requested.
Since the record contains no such request, we reverse the
imposition of the costs of prosecution. See Davis v. State, 286 So.
3d 898, 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). The costs may not be reimposed
on remand. See id.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CASANUEVA and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
3