M.T.C. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.T.C. v. State

679 So. 2d 67, 1996 WL 502108

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 6, 1996

DocketNo. 96-937

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 679 So. 2d 67 (M.T.C. 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

M.T.C. v. State, 679 So. 2d 67, 1996 WL 502108 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders¹ appeal, we affirm M.T.C.’s adjudication and disposition. However, in so doing, we strike the imposition of the public defender’s fee because the court failed to apprise the juvenile or his parents of their right to contest the amount as required by rule 3.720(d)(1), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. On remand, the fee may be reimposed upon compliance with the rule. [68]*68See, e.g., Green v. State, 650 So.2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED.

PETERSON, C.J., and COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders¹ appeal, we affirm M.T.C.’s adjudication and disposition. However, in so doing, we strike the imposition of the public defender’s fee because the court failed to apprise the juvenile or his parents of their right to contest the amount as required by rule 3.720(d)(1), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. On remand, the fee may be reimposed upon compliance with the rule. [68]*68See, e.g., Green v. State, 650 So.2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED.

PETERSON, C.J., and COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

679 So. 2d 67, 1996 WL 502108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mtc-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack