Gedehomme v. State, 160 So. 3d 533

Appellant Innocent Gedehomme was convicted of sexual battery (person over 12, no serious bodily injury) and sentenced to ten years' prison; this is an Anders appeal.
Appellate counsel filed a no-merit Anders brief; Gedehomme filed a pro se Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing errors challenging two costs: a $100 public defender fee and $200 investigatory costs.
The trial court struck Gedehomme’s pro se motion on the ground he was represented/counseled when it was filed, citing Coffelt.
The Second District directed briefing on whether striking the motion was error and on the substantive cost challenges; the State conceded error as to striking the motion and the public defender fee procedural issue.
The court held the 3.800(b)(2) motion was the proper vehicle to preserve review of costs and concluded the motion should have been considered on the merits.
The court reversed the cost order: (1) the $100 public defender fee may only be reimposed after proper notice and an opportunity to be heard; (2) the $200 investigatory fee lacked competent, substantial evidence and may not stand unless properly substantiated on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly struck pro se Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion because appellant was represented	Gedehomme: Pro se motion was timely and Anders appellate counsel does not constitute "counsel" for purposes of striking the motion; court should decide motion on merits	State: Court relied on precedent allowing striking when defendant is represented	Court: Striking was error; Anders representation does not bar timely pro se 3.800(b)(2) filings and the motion should be considered on the merits
Whether the $100 public defender fee was properly imposed without hearing/notice	Gedehomme: He was not given notice or opportunity to be heard as required by statute	State: Conceded error on procedural grounds	Court: Reversed; fee may be reimposed only after proper notice and opportunity to be heard
Whether the $200 investigatory costs were supported by competent, substantial evidence	Gedehomme: Fee is not supported by evidence; Sheriff's affidavit shows a flat $200 with zeros for individualized items	State: Affidavit from Manatee County Sheriff suffices to support costs	Court: Reversed; the flat $200 fee lacks statutory or ordinance support and is not competent, substantial evidence; investigatory costs may be reimposed only if properly substantiated on remand

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (framework for no‑merit appellate briefing)
In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991) (state guidance on handling Anders appeals)
Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2008) (Rule 3.800(b)(2) is proper vehicle to challenge erroneous costs)
Coffelt v. State, 905 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (standing precedent on striking pro se filings when represented)
Lopez v. State, 905 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (counseled status and pro se filings; addressed in subsequent decisions)
McMillan v. State, 8 So. 3d 1237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (notice and opportunity to be heard required before imposing public defender fee)
Pifer v. State, 59 So. 3d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (later discussion affecting precedents on counsel status)