Piasecki v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Piasecki v. State

704 So. 2d 1134, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 333, 1998 WL 17404

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 21, 1998

DocketNo. 96-02095

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 704 So. 2d 1134 (Piasecki 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

Piasecki v. State, 704 So. 2d 1134, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 333, 1998 WL 17404 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

DANAHY, Judge.

Appellate counsel has submitted an An-ders¹ brief, calling this court’s attention to three possible issues. We find merit in the third issue.

The third issue is that the trial court erred in imposing a public defender’s lien. The State concedes the error.

Accordmgly, we reverse the assessment of a public defender’s hen in this case. The trial court failed to advise the appellant of the statutory authority for its imposition, § 27.56, Fla. Stat. (1995), and the trial court failed to advise the appellant of his right to contest the amount of the fees. See § 27.56(7), Fla. Stat. (1995); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.720; Brown v. State, 506 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

On remand, the appellant shall be given thirty days from the date of the mandate to file a written objection to the amount of attorney’s fees imposed. If the appellant objects, the fees shall be stricken but may be reimposed based on the trial court’s findings following a fee healing. See Bourque v. State, 595 So.2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

Except as specified herein, the appellant’s judgment and sentence are affirmed.

PARKER, C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.

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