Maria Eileen Bratton v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Maria Eileen Bratton v. State of Florida

156 So. 3d 590

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 4, 2015

Docket1D13-4923

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 156 So. 3d 590 (Maria Eileen Bratton v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maria Eileen Bratton v. State of Florida, 156 So. 3d 590 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

WOLF, J.

In this Anders * appeal, appellant raises two minor sentencing errors. She argues the trial court erred in imposing a $100 sheriffs investigatory cost because there was no request for that cost on the record. She further argues the court erred in imposing a public defender lien because the court did not inform her of her right to a *591 hearing to dispute the amount. Appellant preserved these issues through a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.800(b). The trial court purported to grant the motion and strike the cost and lien. However, because the court ruled on the motion more than sixty days after the motion was filed, the motion was deemed denied, and the order was a nullity. Johnson v. State, 149 So.3d 732, 733 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Having been given the opportunity to respond pursuant to Harrison v. State, 146 So.3d 76, 80-81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), the State concedes error. Thus, we strike the sheriffs investigatory cost because there was no request for that cost on the record. See Vaughn v. State, 65 So.3d 138, 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (striking sheriffs investigatory costs because there was “no record evidence that they were requested or documented by the State” as required by section 938.27, Florida Statutes).

We also strike the public defender lien and remand with instructions that the trial court advise appellant of her right to contest the amount of the lien. See Harrison, 146 So.3d at 79 (finding where the trial court fails to give the defendant the “ ‘opportunity to object’ to the cost of defense ... we are constrained to reverse this [] cost and remand for the trial court to advise Appellant of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of the indigent legal assistance lien”); § 938.29(5), Fla. Stat.; Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.720(d)(1). Appellant’s judgment and sentence are otherwise affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED with instructions.

BENTON and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

*

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WOLF, J.

In this Anders * appeal, appellant raises two minor sentencing errors. She argues the trial court erred in imposing a $100 sheriffs investigatory cost because there was no request for that cost on the record. She further argues the court erred in imposing a public defender lien because the court did not inform her of her right to a *591 hearing to dispute the amount. Appellant preserved these issues through a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.800(b). The trial court purported to grant the motion and strike the cost and lien. However, because the court ruled on the motion more than sixty days after the motion was filed, the motion was deemed denied, and the order was a nullity. Johnson v. State, 149 So.3d 732, 733 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Having been given the opportunity to respond pursuant to Harrison v. State, 146 So.3d 76, 80-81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), the State concedes error. Thus, we strike the sheriffs investigatory cost because there was no request for that cost on the record. See Vaughn v. State, 65 So.3d 138, 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (striking sheriffs investigatory costs because there was “no record evidence that they were requested or documented by the State” as required by section 938.27, Florida Statutes).

We also strike the public defender lien and remand with instructions that the trial court advise appellant of her right to contest the amount of the lien. See Harrison, 146 So.3d at 79 (finding where the trial court fails to give the defendant the “ ‘opportunity to object’ to the cost of defense ... we are constrained to reverse this [] cost and remand for the trial court to advise Appellant of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of the indigent legal assistance lien”); § 938.29(5), Fla. Stat.; Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.720(d)(1). Appellant’s judgment and sentence are otherwise affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED with instructions.

BENTON and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

*

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 So. 3d 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maria-eileen-bratton-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack