L. E. S. v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJune 30, 2021
Docket2D19-4363
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
L.E.S.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D19-4363
June 30, 2021
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michael J.
Scionti, Judge.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Joanna Beth Conner,
Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
BLACK, Judge.
In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), L.E.S. challenges the order adjudicating him delinquent
for two counts of attempted burglary of an unoccupied conveyance
and placing him on probation. The trial court also ordered him to
pay a public defender fee in the amount of $100 pursuant to section
938.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2019), among other fees and costs.
We affirm the adjudicatory and disposition order in all respects and
write only to address counsel's assertion that the trial court erred in
ordering L.E.S. to pay the $100 public defender fee without
providing him notice and an opportunity to be heard on the amount
of the fee.
While this appeal was pending, L.E.S. filed a motion in the
trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure
8.135(b)(2), asserting that the public defender fee had been imposed
in violation of Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849, 849–50 (Fla. 2d DCA
2018), which held that it was reversible error for a trial court to
impose the minimum public defender fee required by section
938.29(1)(a) without notifying the defendant of his or her right to a
hearing to contest the fee. The trial court did not rule on the
motion within the time prescribed by rule 8.135(b)(1)(B), so it was
deemed denied. In the Anders brief, counsel contends that the trial
court erred in denying the rule 8.135(b)(2) motion. See Hamiter v.
State, 290 So. 3d 1003, 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (stating that
2
counsel may challenge a trial court's denial of a motion to correct
minor sentencing errors, such as errors concerning costs and fees,
in an Anders "no merit" brief). In light of recent precedent on this
issue, we disagree.
The supreme court recently reviewed this court's decision in
J.A.R. v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2361, D2362 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct.
16, 2020), which relied upon Newton and held in pertinent part that
the trial court erred in imposing the statutorily required minimum
public defender fee of $100 for felony cases without notifying J.A.R.
of his right to contest the fee. See State v. J.A.R, 46 Fla. L. Weekly
S157a, S157a (Fla. June 3, 2021). The holding of this court's J.A.R.
decision was contrary to decisions from the Fourth and First
Districts. See Alexis v. State, 211 So. 3d 81, 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
(holding that because the minimum public defender fee of $100 for
each felony case is mandated by statute, "notice and a hearing are
not required before imposition of the minimum amount" (citing
Odom v. State, 187 So. 3d 324, 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016))); Mills v.
State, 177 So. 3d 984, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (en banc) (holding
that notice and a hearing are not necessary before the imposition of
the minimum public defender fee mandated by section 938.29(1)(a)
3
for felony cases). The supreme court quashed this court's J.A.R.
decision and approved the decisions of the Fourth and First
Districts, holding as follows:
[B]y its plain language, section 938.29(1)(a) does not
afford a defendant the right to contest the amount of the
public defender fee when . . . the trial court imposes the
minimum amount required by the statute. Under these
circumstances, the trial court is not required to
announce the imposition of the fee at sentencing or notify
the defendant of the right to a hearing to contest the fee.
J.A.R, 46 Fla. L. Weekly at S157a.
Because the trial court imposed the statutorily required
minimum fee of $100 in this case, it was "not required to announce
the imposition of the fee at sentencing or notify [L.E.S.] of the right
to a hearing to contest the fee." See id. Therefore, the adjudicatory
and disposition order is affirmed.
Affirmed.
KELLY and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
4