final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Dennis D. Bailey, Judge; L.T. Case Nos.
Haughwout, Public Defender, and Nancy Jack, Assistant Public
Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy,
Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Roland Fournier appeals the trial court's order revoking
his probation in one case, an order determining the amount of
restitution in another case, and the orders imposing public
defender fees in both cases. Additionally, Appellant appeals
a hearsay ruling as to one ground alleged for revoking his
probation and the sufficiency of evidence pertaining to
another ground alleged for revoking his probation. We affirm,
without discussion, the trial court's evidentiary rulings
on the conditions of probation violated. However, as properly
conceded by the State on appeal, we agree the trial court
erred in failing to enter an order determining which
conditions of probation were violated, determining the amount
of restitution, and imposing public defender fees exceeding
the minimum amount allowed by statute. We therefore affirm in
part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
was charged with burglary of a dwelling and petit theft.
After pleading no contest to the charges, Appellant was
sentenced to two years of drug offender probation with $300
in restitution for the burglary charge and one day of
probation for petit theft.
probation officer filed an affidavit of violation of
probation ("VOP") alleging, among other things,
that Appellant tested positive for morphine and cannabis as
shown by an analysis of a urine drop obtained from Appellant
a few weeks earlier. Subsequently, Appellant was charged with
new offenses of uttering a forged instrument and petit theft.
probation officer filed an amended affidavit of VOP including
additional allegations, among which was that Appellant had
violated his probation by changing his residence without
first procuring her consent. It does not appear the new law
violations relating to the uttering a forged instrument and
petit theft charges were included in the amended VOP
hearing was conducted. The trial court determined that
Appellant had violated his probation with respect to the
positive drug test. The trial court also found Appellant
violated his probation by moving from his residence without
permission. Upon determining that Appellant violated
probation, the trial court revoked Appellant's probation
and sentenced him to five years in prison with credit for
time served for the burglary. No written order was entered
stating the trial court's findings regarding what
condition or conditions of probation were violated.
the VOP proceeding, Appellant entered no contest pleas to the
new charges of uttering a forged instrument and petit theft.
For those charges, he was sentenced to five years in prison
concurrent to the burglary sentence. The State moved for $850
of restitution for the uttering charge, to which defense
counsel objected. The trial court orally ruled that it would
order restitution, but reserved as to the amount. The trial
court noted that if the parties could not reach an agreement
as to the amount, there would be a hearing. Despite this oral
pronouncement, however, the trial court entered a written
restitution order for $850. The trial court also entered an
order imposing a $150 public defender fee for the burglary
case and a $300 public defender fee for the uttering case.
filed the instant appeal as to both the burglary and uttering
cases. During the pendency of this appeal, Appellant filed a
rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error in the
uttering case, seeking to strike the written order
determining restitution in the amount of $850, on the basis
that the trial court orally pronounced that it would reserve
ruling as to the amount of restitution and there was no
subsequent stipulation or hearing on the amount. It does not
appear the trial court ruled on the rule 3.800(b)(2) motion.
Appellant also filed a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct
sentencing error in the burglary case, requesting that the
trial court enter a written order setting forth the specific
conditions of probation violated to justify revocation of his
probation. The record does not reflect that the second motion
was ruled upon either. Finally, Appellant filed a third rule
3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error in both cases
regarding the public defender fees imposed and seeking to
reduce the fees to the statutory minimum amount of $100 or to
provide notice and an opportunity to be heard if the court
considered imposing a fee in excess of the statutory minimum.
As with the other rule 3.800(b)(2) motions, it does not
appear the trial court entered a ruling on the third motion.