262 So. 3d 849
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Appellant Willie Mathers Newton was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder with a firearm; the conviction and sentence were otherwise affirmed.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed costs including a $100 fee for services of court-appointed conflict counsel under section 938.29(1).
- Newton moved under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) to correct sentencing error, arguing he was not given notice of his right to a hearing to contest the $100 fee when the court pronounced sentence.
- The trial court denied relief, relying on the First District's decision in Mills that no pre-imposition notice/hearing is required for the statutory minimum fee.
- The Second District reversed as to the $100 fee, holding the trial court must give notice of the right to a hearing (per rule 3.720(d)(1) read with section 938.29(5)), and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court certified conflict with the First District's decision in Mills; the remainder of the judgment and sentence was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by imposing a $100 public defender fee without giving notice of the right to a hearing | Newton: trial court failed to give required notice and opportunity to be heard under rule 3.720(d)(1) and § 938.29(5) | State: no notice required when imposing statutory minimum (relying on Mills) | Trial court erred; defendant must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposing the fee; $100 reversed and remanded |
| Whether challenge to amount of $100 fee could succeed | Newton: contest amount procedurally required though amount is statutory minimum | State: amount is statutory minimum and substantive challenge would fail | Court noted substantive challenge to amount would fail but procedural notice/hearing is still required |
| Whether trial court could rely on later panel authority (Mojica) to avoid prior Second District precedent | Newton: prior Second District precedent governs; trial court bound to follow it | State: trial court relied on Mojica and Mills to justify no-notice rule | Trial court may not ignore binding Second District precedent; Mojica’s suggestion on notice was dicta and not controlling |
| Whether conflict with First District should be certified | Newton: seek uniformity and adherence to Second District precedent | State: relied on First District precedent (Mills) | Court certified conflict with Mills and remanded for further proceedings on the fee issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Gedehomme v. State, 160 So. 3d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (trial court must give notice and opportunity to be heard before imposing public defender fee)
- Neal v. State, 62 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (failure to notify of right to hearing requires striking public defender lien and remand)
- Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (en banc) (held notice/hearing not required before imposing statutory minimum public defender lien)
- Mojica v. State, 192 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (panel opinion suggesting notice may not be required for statutory minimum; treated as dicta here)
- Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992) (district court precedent hierarchy; trial courts must follow controlling district decisions)
- Wood v. Fraser, 677 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (one panel of a district court should not treat another panel’s expressions as overruling prior panel precedent)