Yes it does.

Nelson v. Colorado, 581 U.S. 128 (2017) ("When a criminal conviction is invalidated by a reviewing court and no retrial will occur, is the State obliged to refund fees, court costs, and restitution exacted from the defendant upon, and as a consequence of, the conviction? Our answer is yes. Absent conviction of a crime, one is presumed innocent.")

Notice how I'm citing cases and those arguing the contrary are just saying stuff.

So if you went to prison for 7 years, and your conviction wasn’t overturned but you served your time, it’s somehow ok for the government to send you a bill for $50 * 365 * 7 = $127750? When convicted felons usually struggle to find better than minimum wage jobs due to their records? What a perversion of “justice”. And if you get out early for good behavior or due to prison overcrowding (again, your sentence was valid) you still get charged for the full 7 years? How is that morally reasonable?

How is that morally reasonable? I think it depends on whether the court was aware of this and considered it during sentencing. If someone served 7 years for a major corruption charge, paid $1.5 Million in restitution, and $250k in fines, then I think $127k in fees might be perfectly reasonable.

If someone served 7 years on a drug charge, the part that I would find morally reprehensible would probably be the incarceration. In my mind 7 years of prison is a lot worse than the $127k.

I am not a bankruptcy (or criminal) lawyer, but it may also be dischargeable in bankruptcy. What I see online says "punitive" charges are not dischargeable, but "reimbursement" based charges are and this seems related to reimbursing the state for the cost of the bed.

No it is theft, also I think it's like this because the state needs criminals to justify its standing army and policing powers. If it's this hard to do well, kneecapping someone only makes it more likely they will betray society instead of rejoining it. No criminals means no need for police or SWAT or overreaching crime fighting powers or overbearing surveillance. The State is a higher order organism which needs criminals to justify itself.

Notice the "criminal conviction is invalidated by a reviewing court and no retrial will occur" part?

Well, citations don't really matter when the topic in question is regarding Florida law and you're citing Colorado law.

The name has "Colorado" in it but it's a SCOTUS case that turns on the 14th amendment to the Constitution, so it's valid in Florida too.

No it doesn't. "Wrongful conviction" is a term of art with a very specific meaning here. Likewise "fees".

nativeit says that it doesn't apply to those who were not wrongfully convicted, then an authoritative source is presented that clearly states that it does apply to those who were not wrongfully convicted, and your counterclaim is that "wrongfully convicted" is a term of art with a specific legal meaning?

What on Earth???

Getting released before serving your entire sentence is not a wrongful conviction.

No one claimed it is.

That's literally the scenario

That's why this whole thing doesn't apply. "Wrongful conviction" is a very narrow term.

Tell that to the person who said that it doesn't apply to those who were not wrongfully convicted, using those exact words, not the person who is providing authoritative references stating that it does.