Owen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Owen v. State

906 So. 2d 1266, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11658, 2005 WL 1752011

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 27, 2005

DocketNo. 4D04-2963

StatusPublished

This text of 906 So. 2d 1266 (Owen 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

Owen v. State, 906 So. 2d 1266, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11658, 2005 WL 1752011 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Over five years after appellant’s conviction for first degree murder and sentence of death, his specially appointed public defender moved for assessment of attorney’s fees and costs against appellant. At sentencing, the court failed to notify the appellant of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of the fees and further failed to notify him of the hearing on the motion for assessment of fees. Despite these infirmities, the trial court granted the motion and imposed a lien for fees against appellant. We reverse the order because of the lack of notice. See Lang v. State, 856 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Because the statute of limitations has run, we direct the trial court to vacate its order. Platt v. State, 647 So.2d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

WARNER, GROSS and MAY, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Over five years after appellant’s conviction for first degree murder and sentence of death, his specially appointed public defender moved for assessment of attorney’s fees and costs against appellant. At sentencing, the court failed to notify the appellant of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of the fees and further failed to notify him of the hearing on the motion for assessment of fees. Despite these infirmities, the trial court granted the motion and imposed a lien for fees against appellant. We reverse the order because of the lack of notice. See Lang v. State, 856 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Because the statute of limitations has run, we direct the trial court to vacate its order. Platt v. State, 647 So.2d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

WARNER, GROSS and MAY, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

906 So. 2d 1266, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11658, 2005 WL 1752011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owen-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack