Goddard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Goddard v. State

633 So. 2d 1191, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 2820, 1994 WL 94202

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 25, 1994·No. No. 93-1748·Published

Opinion

HARRIS, Chief Judge.

We affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence for trafficking in cocaine. However, our review of the record reveals that the defendant was never apprised of his right to contest the amount of the contract attorney’s lien that was imposed. See Smith v. State, 622 So.2d 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Therefore, the $600 lien is stricken without prejudice to its reimposition upon compliance with Rule 3.720(d)(1), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opimon.

AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opimon.

GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ, concur.

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

HARRIS, Chief Judge.

We affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence for trafficking in cocaine. However, our review of the record reveals that the defendant was never apprised of his right to contest the amount of the contract attorney’s lien that was imposed. See Smith v. State, 622 So.2d 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Therefore, the $600 lien is stricken without prejudice to its reimposition upon compliance with Rule 3.720(d)(1), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opimon.

AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opimon.

GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ, concur.

Goddard v. State, 633 So. 2d 1191, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 2820, 1994 WL 94202 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

633 So. 2d 1191 (Goddard v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related