Boughman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Boughman v. State

701 So. 2d 639, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12711, 1997 WL 716524

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 12, 1997

DocketNo. 96-00977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 701 So. 2d 639 (Boughman 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

Boughman v. State, 701 So. 2d 639, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12711, 1997 WL 716524 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Judge.

We affirm the sentences imposed upon Mark Boughman after he pleaded guilty to violating his probation. We note, however, that the trial court imposed a $500 public defender’s hen after informing Boughman of the amount of the hen and his right to challenge it. The written judgment, however, does not reflect the statutory authority upon which the lien was imposed. See Williams v. State, 661 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The judgment must be corrected to recite the appropriate statute. Furthermore, a $100 “attorney cost” was announced at the sentencing but without reference to statutory authority either orally or in writing on the judgment. Because that cost does not appear to be authorized, it must be stricken. See Reyes.

Remanded for correction of the judgment.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.

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

FRANK, Judge.

We affirm the sentences imposed upon Mark Boughman after he pleaded guilty to violating his probation. We note, however, that the trial court imposed a $500 public defender’s hen after informing Boughman of the amount of the hen and his right to challenge it. The written judgment, however, does not reflect the statutory authority upon which the lien was imposed. See Williams v. State, 661 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The judgment must be corrected to recite the appropriate statute. Furthermore, a $100 “attorney cost” was announced at the sentencing but without reference to statutory authority either orally or in writing on the judgment. Because that cost does not appear to be authorized, it must be stricken. See Reyes.

Remanded for correction of the judgment.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

701 So. 2d 639, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12711, 1997 WL 716524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boughman-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack