Oladipupo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Oladipupo v. State

635 So. 2d 160, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3924, 1994 WL 157003

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 1994

DocketNo. 93-655

StatusPublished

This text of 635 So. 2d 160 (Oladipupo 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

Oladipupo v. State, 635 So. 2d 160, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3924, 1994 WL 157003 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal in a criminal case. Because the court did not give adequate notice or reason for the assessment of a “state attorney fee,” that provision of the judgment is stricken. See Turkaly v. State, 615 So.2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Smith v. State, 606 So.2d 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED as modified.

HARRIS, C.J., and W. SHARP, J., concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal in a criminal case. Because the court did not give adequate notice or reason for the assessment of a “state attorney fee,” that provision of the judgment is stricken. See Turkaly v. State, 615 So.2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Smith v. State, 606 So.2d 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED as modified.

HARRIS, C.J., and W. SHARP, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

635 So. 2d 160, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3924, 1994 WL 157003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oladipupo-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack