Becker v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Becker v. State

646 So. 2d 299, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12286, 1994 WL 700110

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 16, 1994

DocketNo. 93-2725

StatusPublished

This text of 646 So. 2d 299 (Becker v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Becker v. State, 646 So. 2d 299, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12286, 1994 WL 700110 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

On appeal from his convictions for battery and false imprisonment, Becker raises two points on appeal. First, he argues that the trial court erred in imposing community control and jail time when his permitted sentence under the guidelines was community control or imprisonment. The state concedes error. See Felty v. State, 630 So.2d 1092 (Fla.1994).

Becker also argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay attorney’s fees to his court appointed counsel because he was never advised of his right to a hearing to contest the amount. Again, the state concedes error. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720(d); Smith v. State, 622 So.2d 638 (Fla.5th DCA 1993). However, the state correctly points out that Becker may be ordered to pay the attorney’s fee upon remand, after compliance with rule 3.720(d).

STRIKE SENTENCES AND FEE AWARD; REMAND.

HARRIS, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

W. SHARP, Judge.

On appeal from his convictions for battery and false imprisonment, Becker raises two points on appeal. First, he argues that the trial court erred in imposing community control and jail time when his permitted sentence under the guidelines was community control or imprisonment. The state concedes error. See Felty v. State, 630 So.2d 1092 (Fla.1994).

Becker also argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay attorney’s fees to his court appointed counsel because he was never advised of his right to a hearing to contest the amount. Again, the state concedes error. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720(d); Smith v. State, 622 So.2d 638 (Fla.5th DCA 1993). However, the state correctly points out that Becker may be ordered to pay the attorney’s fee upon remand, after compliance with rule 3.720(d).

STRIKE SENTENCES AND FEE AWARD; REMAND.

HARRIS, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

646 So. 2d 299, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12286, 1994 WL 700110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/becker-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack