Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

714 So. 2d 1124

Docket No. 97-3231.

Mayolo v. State

David MAYOLO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 15, 1998.

Rehearing Denied August 21, 1998.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1998-07-15

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 2016

5 state decisions

Relies on Anders v. California · Petition of Graham ex rel. Nine Condemned Men v. State · 672 So. 2d 530 - The Florida Bar v. Maynard

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-07-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Joseph R. Chloupek, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, and David Mayolo, Immokalee, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Barbra Amron Weisberg, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4In this appeal of an order denying postconviction relief after evidentiary hearing, for which counsel was appointed, the public defender has moved to withdraw as appellate counsel and filed a supporting brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Herzig, 208 So.2d 619 (Fla.1968). The authority for appointing counsel to handle postconviction matters stems from the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, not the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See Schneelock v. State, 665 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rev. denied, 672 So.2d 543 (Fla. 1996); Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363, 1365-66 (Fla.1979). Accordingly, it is not necessary to follow the procedure set forth in Anders before seeking to withdraw from appeals of orders denying postconviction relief. See generally Ostrum v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. of Fla., 663 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (determining Anders procedures should not attend appellate consideration of appeal from final order terminating parental rights, where right to counsel does not arise under Sixth Amendment).

¶5We reverse the denial only as it pertains to the failure to give Appellant notice *1125 and an opportunity to contest the assessment of public defender fees imposed pursuant to section 27.56, Florida Statutes (1993).[1] The state was unable to refute Appellant's allegation that he was not given such notice and opportunity, the giving of which is mandatory. See § 27.56(7), Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.720(d). We remand for the trial court to give Appellant thirty days in which to contest the amount of the fees; if he does so, the fees must be stricken, but they may be reimposed based on the trial court's findings following a fee hearing. See, e.g., Basham v. State, 695 So.2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

¶6STONE, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and POLEN, JJ., concur.

NOTES

¶7[1] This provision was renumbered as section 989.29 and amended by chapter 97-271, section 22, at 4994-96, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 1997.

/714/so2d/1124 · .json · Public domain