Mills v. State
177 So. 3d 984
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Henry Coldridge Mills was convicted of three counts of attempted second-degree murder, discharging a firearm from a vehicle, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; concurrent terms were imposed.
- At sentencing the trial court pronounced and later included a $150 public defender fee lien and $721 in costs; defendant later filed a Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion challenging several costs/fines.
- Statutory framework: §27.52 imposes a $50 application fee for court‑appointed counsel; §938.29 (as amended 2008) requires minimum attorney’s fees/costs ($100 felony, $50 misdemeanor) and allows assessment as part of sentence.
- Prior precedent required notice and an opportunity to contest public‑defender fee liens under pre‑2008 §938.29(5); some panels continued to reverse minimum liens when no hearing was given.
- The court addressed whether notice/hearing is required before imposing the statutory minimum public‑defender lien, and whether several other costs/fines (sheriff investigative cost; discretionary fine and surcharge) were properly imposed without oral pronouncement or request on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mandatory minimum public‑defender lien requires notice and a hearing before imposition | Mills argued the court erred by imposing the lien without affording the statutorily required notice/hearing under §938.29(5) and rule 3.720 | State argued the lien reflects statutorily mandated minimums set by the Legislature and thus no hearing is required to impose the minimum amount | Court (en banc) held no notice/hearing is required to impose statutory minimum public‑defender lien ($150 felony; $100 misdemeanor); receded from prior panel precedent requiring a hearing for minimums |
| Whether the $100 sheriff investigative cost may be imposed without pronouncement/request on the record | Mills challenged that the investigative cost was imposed post‑sentencing without notice or identification | State lacked record evidence requesting the investigative cost | Court reversed the sheriff investigative cost as discretionary and improperly imposed; may not be reimposed on remand because no record request existed |
| Whether the $100 discretionary fine and $5 surcharge were properly imposed without oral pronouncement | Mills argued the fine and surcharge were not pronounced at sentencing and thus improperly imposed | State conceded error in imposing the discretionary fine without notice/pronouncement | Court reversed the fine and surcharge; on remand court may reimpose after proper notice and procedure or strike them from judgment |
| Preservation and fundamental‑error arguments | State noted none of the contested impositions constituted fundamental error and issues were preserved only via Rule 3.800 motion | Mills relied on Rule 3.800 to challenge sentencing costs after sentencing | Court treated the 3.800(b)(2) motion as denied by operation of rule and addressed the merits; found no fundamental error requiring direct appeal relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Nix v. State, 84 So.3d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (distinguishing statutorily‑mandated costs from discretionary costs requiring oral pronouncement)
- Harrison v. State, 146 So.3d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (prior panel required notice/hearing even for minimum indigent‑assistance lien; court receded from this line)
- Youman v. State, 112 So.3d 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (struck public defender lien where defendant was not informed of right to contest amount)
- G.D. v. State, 42 So.3d 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversed fee where statute mandated opportunity to object to amount)
- Kirkland v. State, 106 So.3d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (investigative costs under §938.27 are discretionary and must be requested on the record)
- Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562 (Fla. 2008) (imposition of unauthorized costs is sentencing error under rule 3.800(b) and typically not fundamental error)