Bailey v. State
693 So. 2d 142, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5395, 1997 WL 255311
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bailey v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 717 So. 2d 1096 →
Opinion
We affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence but strike the imposition of a public defender’s fee because notice was not given to the defendant of his right to challenge the amount of the fee as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1). See L.A.N. v. State, 675 So.2d 711 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Fontenont v. State, 631 So.2d 379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). However, on remand, the fee may be reimposed after compliance with the rule.
[143]*143JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; PUBLIC DEFENDER’S FEE STRICKEN; CAUSE REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bailey v. State, 693 So. 2d 142, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5395, 1997 WL 255311 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).
693 So. 2d 142 (Bailey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Fontenont v. State
631 So. 2d 379 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
L.A.N. v. State
675 So. 2d 711 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)