Matke v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Matke v. State

765 So. 2d 52, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1255, 1998 WL 55968

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 13, 1998

DocketNo. 97-1386

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 765 So. 2d 52 (Matke 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

Matke v. State, 765 So. 2d 52, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1255, 1998 WL 55968 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue raised in this direct appeal from appellant’s conviction and sentence is whether the public defender lien was assessed improperly. We reverse.

We have repeatedly reversed when a trial court imposes a public defender’s hen without giving the appellant notice of his right to a hearing to contest the amount, as is required under section 27.56(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1). See Warren v. State, 701 So.2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Brantley v. State, 692 So.2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Brock v. State, 667 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Robinson v. State, 667 So.2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Willis v. State, 665 So.2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Such an error is considered fundamental. See Strickland v. State, 693 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Accordingly, we are obliged to strike the public defender lien, without prejudice. On remand, a lien may again be imposed, provided that appellant is given notice and an opportunity to contest its amount.

We recognize that appellee relies on Fourth District cases, Bryant v. State, 677 So.2d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) and Holmes v. State, 658 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), which hold such errors are not fundamental, and therefore we certify conflict with those opinions.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

MINER, J., and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur. WOLF, J., specially concurs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue raised in this direct appeal from appellant’s conviction and sentence is whether the public defender lien was assessed improperly. We reverse.

We have repeatedly reversed when a trial court imposes a public defender’s hen without giving the appellant notice of his right to a hearing to contest the amount, as is required under section 27.56(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1). See Warren v. State, 701 So.2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Brantley v. State, 692 So.2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Brock v. State, 667 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Robinson v. State, 667 So.2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Willis v. State, 665 So.2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Such an error is considered fundamental. See Strickland v. State, 693 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Accordingly, we are obliged to strike the public defender lien, without prejudice. On remand, a lien may again be imposed, provided that appellant is given notice and an opportunity to contest its amount.

We recognize that appellee relies on Fourth District cases, Bryant v. State, 677 So.2d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) and Holmes v. State, 658 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), which hold such errors are not fundamental, and therefore we certify conflict with those opinions.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

MINER, J., and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur. WOLF, J., specially concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

765 So. 2d 52, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1255, 1998 WL 55968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matke-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack