Houser v. State

666 So. 2d 158, 1995 WL 525676
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 8, 1995
Docket94-2360
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 666 So. 2d 158 (Houser 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
Houser v. State, 666 So. 2d 158, 1995 WL 525676 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

666 So.2d 158 (1995)

Steven HOUSER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 94-2360.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

September 8, 1995.
Rehearing Denied January 19, 1996.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Daisy G. Clements, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Lori E. Nelson, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for appellee.

THOMPSON, Judge.

In this Anders appeal,[1] Steven Houser was convicted of sale of cocaine (count one) and possession of cocaine with intent to sell (count two). Houser was adjudicated a habitual felony offender for both convictions and received concurrent 12-year sentences. We conclude that it was error to adjudicate Houser as a habitual offender as to the possession offense, as that type of offense is excluded from consideration under the habitual offender statute. See § 775.084(1)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (1993). See also Jackson v. State, 651 So.2d 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Accordingly, we strike the habitual offender adjudication as to count two.

We also conclude that it was error to impose a public defender's lien in the amount of $250 where Houser was not given prior notice of the lien or informed at sentencing that he had 30 days to object to the amount. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720(d)(1). See also Bull v. State, 548 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 1989); Burke v. State, 642 So.2d 677 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). We strike the public defender's lien, without prejudice on remand to reimpose it after proper notice is furnished. In all other respects, the judgment and sentences are affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part; HABITUAL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION and PUBLIC DEFENDER'S LIEN STRICKEN; and REMANDED.

GOSHORN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

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

Related

Irvin v. State
712 So. 2d 477 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Denson v. State
711 So. 2d 1225 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Ellis v. State
703 So. 2d 1186 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Grene v. State
702 So. 2d 510 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
M.D. v. State
686 So. 2d 769 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Wright v. State
683 So. 2d 1166 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Harris v. State
695 So. 2d 742 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Daniels v. State
679 So. 2d 354 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Williams v. State
667 So. 2d 914 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
666 So. 2d 158, 1995 WL 525676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houser-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.