Whitley v. State of Florida
2021-1110
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.Dec 13, 2023Background
- Appellant Jarquez Jerome Whitley was sentenced on two felony convictions in Bay County, Florida.
- The trial court imposed costs, fees, and fines in two lump sums and did not specify individual discretionary fines or surcharges orally at sentencing.
- Whitley later argued that some costs were imposed twice, and that the lump sum method deprived him of a meaningful ability to contest discretionary fines.
- The State argued Whitley's failure to object at sentencing meant his claims were not preserved for appellate review.
- Whitley timely filed a Rule 3.800(b) motion to correct the sentencing error, preserving the matters for appeal.
- The appeal focused on whether certain costs could be imposed per count or per case, and whether unpronounced discretionary fines were validly imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Whitley's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether issue was preserved for appeal | He could not object before knowing actual costs imposed in lump sum | Argument not preserved because Whitley did not object at sentencing | Issues preserved due to timely 3.800(b) motion |
| Whether some court costs were imposed twice (per count vs per case) | Some costs should only be imposed once per case, not per count | Trial court correctly imposed costs as permitted by statute | Some costs impermissibly imposed twice; must be stricken on remand |
| Whether discretionary fines and surcharges must be pronounced | Discretionary fines were not pronounced; should be struck | No express argument on this point | Discretionary fines must be pronounced; may be reimposed after proper notice and hearing |
| Whether excess public defender fees must allow defendant to be heard | He was not given a hearing on fees over the minimum | No express argument on this point | Excess fees over the minimum to be stricken, but may be reimposed with notice and hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeil v. State, 215 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 2017) (discusses whether costs are imposed per count or per case based on statutory language)
- Hogle v. State, 250 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (timely 3.800(b) motion preserves cost/fee issues for appeal)
- Thomas v. State, 76 So. 3d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (interprets statutory maximum for certain costs)
- Bryant v. State, 302 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (requires pronouncement of discretionary fines and opportunity to be heard on public defender fees)
- Sanchez v. State, 332 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (statutory language determines whether costs are per count or per case)