Botero v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Botero v. State

681 So. 2d 813, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10495, 1996 WL 577337

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 9, 1996

DocketNo. 95-02296

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 681 So. 2d 813 (Botero 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

Botero v. State, 681 So. 2d 813, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10495, 1996 WL 577337 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant presents two issues for our consideration. He claims, first of all, that his motion for judgment of acquittal as to the charge of trafficking by possession should have been granted because of insufficient evidence. We find this issue is without merit. We do agree with the appellant, however, that the trial court erred in imposing a public defender hen without advising him of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of the hen. Wilson v. State, 675 So.2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence except that on remand the appellant shah have thirty days from the date of the mandate to file a written objection to the amount assessed. If an objection is filed, the trial court shall strike the assessment and shah not impose a new assessment without notice and hearing, pursuant to rule 3.720(d)(1), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Bourque v. State, 595 So.2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

THREADGILL, C.J., and PATTERSON, J., and SCHEB, JOHN M., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant presents two issues for our consideration. He claims, first of all, that his motion for judgment of acquittal as to the charge of trafficking by possession should have been granted because of insufficient evidence. We find this issue is without merit. We do agree with the appellant, however, that the trial court erred in imposing a public defender hen without advising him of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of the hen. Wilson v. State, 675 So.2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence except that on remand the appellant shah have thirty days from the date of the mandate to file a written objection to the amount assessed. If an objection is filed, the trial court shall strike the assessment and shah not impose a new assessment without notice and hearing, pursuant to rule 3.720(d)(1), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Bourque v. State, 595 So.2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

THREADGILL, C.J., and PATTERSON, J., and SCHEB, JOHN M., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

681 So. 2d 813, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10495, 1996 WL 577337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/botero-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack