Lee v. StateLee v. State
William Lee appeals from a final judgment assessing costs and imposing a lien entered following his conviction for first degree murder with a firearm. Appellant argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction or authority to assess costs against him and impose a lien against his property.
On December 2, 1997, William Lee, appellant, was indicted for first degree murder with a firearm. Appellant was represented by private counsel throughout the proceedings below. On June 25, 1998, appellant filed an unopposed motion to be declared indigent for costs, pursuant to
The county is required to pay certain costs associated with a legal defense, including the costs of discovery, when a defendant is unable to pay those costs. See
Appellant was convicted of first degree murder with a firearm. On March 16, 1999, appellant filed an appeal from his judgment of conviction with this court. On May 3, 2000, this court filed its decision per curiam affirming his conviction.
On April 27, 1999, Appellant‘s counsel filed a motion for assessment of costs against appellant pursuant to
On April 27, 1999, the trial court entered an order pursuant to
Following his conviction, the trial court assessed costs against appellant pursuant to
(1)(a) The court having jurisdiction over any defendant who has been determined to be guilty of a criminal act by a court or jury or through a plea of guilty or nolo contendere and who has received the assistance of the public defender‘s office, a special assistant public defender, or a conflict attorney shall assess attorney‘s fees and costs against the defendant at the sentencing hearing and shall determine the appropriate amount and method of payment. Such costs may include the cost of depositions ... or other reasonable costs specially incurred by the county for the defense of the defendant in criminal prosecutions within the county. ...
(b) Upon entering a judgment of conviction, the trial court shall order the defendant to pay the costs assessed by the court in full, or within a time certain as set by the court, after the judgment of conviction becomes final.
. . .
(2)(a) When payment of the application fee and attorney‘s fees and costs has been ordered by the court, there is created in the name of the county in which such assistance was rendered a lien, enforceable as hereinafter provided, upon all the property, both real and personal, of any person who:
1. Has received any assistance from any public defender of the state, from any special assistant public defender, or from any conflict attorney; or ...
(Emphasis added).
Appellant argues that a plain reading of
When the language of a statute is clear, unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no need to resort to the rules of statutory interpretation and construction; the statute is given its plain and obvious meaning. McLaughlin v. State, 721 So.2d 1170, 1172 (Fla. 1998); Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla.1984).
Absent statutory authority, courts do not have the power to assess costs against a defendant upon conviction. See Lindsey v. Dykes, 129 Fla. 65, 67, 175 So. 792, 793 (1937); Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111, 114-115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Therefore, the trial court did not have authority to assess costs against appellant, who was represented by a private attorney, and impose a lien against his property.
Appellant also contends that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to assess costs and impose a lien because at that time appellant had already filed a notice of appeal of his conviction. We disagree. A trial court retains jurisdiction to assess fees and costs after a notice of appeal has been filed, even where the trial court did not expressly reserve jurisdiction to do so. Wyatt v. State, 652 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
Although the trial court had jurisdiction to consider a motion to assess costs and impose a lien,
REVERSED.
STONE, KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.