DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LEROY A. ROEBUCK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-3628

[March 3, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Barbara R. Duffy, Judge; L.T. Case No. 18-

005107CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Robert Porter, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

KUNTZ, J.

Leroy Roebuck appeals his convictions and sentences for petit theft and 

resisting a police officer without violence. He raises four issues on appeal. 

We affirm Roebuck’s convictions and sentences, but remand in part for 

further proceedings. 

Roebuck argues the court erred in denying a motion to suppress 

evidence obtained from a search warrant and in denying his motion for 

judgment of acquittal. On these two issues, we affirm without further 

discussion.

Roebuck next contends that the court’s written judgment incorrectly 

labeled his petit theft conviction a first-degree misdemeanor. The State 

agrees that this scrivener’s error appears on the face of the judgment. As 

such, we agree the court must correct the judgment. See, e.g., Ismer v. 

State, 253 So. 3d 769, 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). On remand, the circuit 

court shall correct the judgment to state that Roebuck was convicted of a 
2

violation of section 812.014(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2019), a second-degree

misdemeanor. Roebuck need not be present for the correction. Id.

Roebuck also argues and the State concedes that the court erred in 

imposing several court costs. The first is a $26 cost authorized by the 

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit’s Administrative Order VI-02-D-3 for cases 

heard in county court. We agree that the $26 assessment was improper 

and must be removed. In addition, the court incorrectly assessed $10 

under section 318.18(19), Florida Statutes (2019); $30 under section 

318.13(13)(a), Florida Statutes (2019); and $65 under section 318.18(2), 

Florida Statutes (2019). As the Defendant was not charged and convicted 

of a traffic offense, these costs must also be removed.

Finally, Roebuck challenges the $200 assessment for the public 

defender’s fee. The legislature requires the court to assess a minimum of 

$100 for the public defender’s fee where a felony offense was charged. To 

assess a higher amount, the court must have “sufficient proof of higher 

fees or costs incurred.” Brinson v. State, 302 So. 3d 916, 918 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2020) (citing § 938.29(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2019)). Here, the court did not 

receive evidence supporting the increased fee or advise Roebuck of his 

right to challenge the higher fee. On remand, the court must either reduce 

the public defender’s fee to $100 or hold a hearing after giving notice to 

Roebuck. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 250 So. 3d 122, 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2018).

In conclusion, we affirm Roebuck’s convictions and sentences. But we 

remand to the circuit court for three reasons. First, the court must correct 

the scrivener’s errors on the judgment. Second, the court must remove 

the costs improperly assessed. Third, the court must either reduce the 

public defender’s fee to $100 or “hold a hearing with proper notice to 

obtain evidence in support of a public defender fee in an amount greater 

than the statutory minimum.” Alexis v. State, 211 So. 3d 81, 83 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2017).1

Affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.

1 In A.C. v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2784 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020), the Second District 

certified conflict with Alexis, 211 So. 3d 81 and Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d 984 

(Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (en banc). The Second District held that a defendant must 

be given notice of the right to contest the imposition of the statutory minimum

$100 fee. Id. Roebuck argues the court “must either reduce the public defender’s 

fee to the statutorily required $100 or provide [him] the opportunity to contest 

the fee amount.” So even if the Florida Supreme Court accepts jurisdiction of 

A.C., the court’s resolution of the certified conflict will not impact this case.
3

GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.