Johnathan Aponte-Velez v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledOctober 28, 2020
Docket2D18-4499
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
JOHNATHAN APONTE-VELEZ, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D18-4499
)
STATE OF FLORIDA, )
)
Appellee. )
)
Opinion filed October 28, 2020.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk
County; Neil A. Roddenbery, Judge.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,
and Matthew J. Salvia, Assistant Public
Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, for Appellee.
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Mr. Johnathan Aponte-Velez appeals his judgments and sentences for
possession of cocaine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and resisting an officer
without violence. We affirm his judgments and sentences, but we reverse the $100
public defender fee and remand for it to be stricken because the record shows that the
trial court did not give Mr. Aponte-Velez notice of his right to a hearing to contest this
fee.
While this appeal was pending, Mr. Aponte-Velez filed a motion to correct
sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). He argued
that, pursuant to Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), the trial court
erred in imposing a $100 public defender fee without offering him an opportunity to
object to the fee or to request a hearing. After the time limit for judicial action on the
rule 3.800(b)(2) motion had expired, the motion was deemed denied.
Mr. Aponte-Velez is correct that Newton, 262 So. 3d at 849-50, held that
the trial court erred in imposing a $100 fee for the services of court-appointed conflict
counsel where the court failed to notify the appellant of his right to a hearing to contest
the fee when pronouncing its imposition at sentencing. In Newton, 262 So. 3d at 850,
this court certified conflict with the First District's decision in Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d
984, 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), which held that the $100 fee is the minimum amount
mandated by section 938.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2018), and therefore, it is "binding
on the court and the defendant alike, [and] no hearing is necessary or appropriate." Cf.
Alexis v. State, 211 So. 3d 81, 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (holding that "[b]ecause these
fees are statutorily mandated, notice and a hearing are not required before imposition of
the minimum amount," but such are required if the amount of the fee exceeds the
statutory minimum).
In accordance with Newton, we reverse the $100 public defender fee and
remand for it to be stricken because the record shows that the trial court did not give Mr.
Aponte-Velez notice of his right to a hearing to contest this fee. As this court did in
-2-
Newton, 262 So. 3d at 850, we certify conflict with the First District's decision in Mills.
We also certify conflict with Alexis, 211 So. 3d 81.
Judgments and sentences affirmed; case remanded to strike public
defender fee; conflict certified.
SILBERMAN and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
-3-