Sapp v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sapp v. State

766 So. 2d 226, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10445, 1999 WL 560521

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 3, 1999

DocketNo. 98-3828

StatusPublished

This text of 766 So. 2d 226 (Sapp 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

Sapp v. State, 766 So. 2d 226, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10445, 1999 WL 560521 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because appellant failed to object below to the imposition of a statutorily authorized public defender’s lien without prior notice and opportunity to be heard, and because the error is not fundamental under Locke v. State, 719 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 760 So.2d 947 (Fla.1999), we affirm. See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (1997). Nevertheless, in accordance with Locke and Dodson v. State, 710 So.2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted, 725 So.2d 1110 (Fla.1998), we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance:

WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF A STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED PUBLIC DEFENDER’S LIEN WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD CONSTITUTES FUNDAMENTAL ERROR?

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, LAWRENCE and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because appellant failed to object below to the imposition of a statutorily authorized public defender’s lien without prior notice and opportunity to be heard, and because the error is not fundamental under Locke v. State, 719 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 760 So.2d 947 (Fla.1999), we affirm. See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (1997). Nevertheless, in accordance with Locke and Dodson v. State, 710 So.2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted, 725 So.2d 1110 (Fla.1998), we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance:

WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF A STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED PUBLIC DEFENDER’S LIEN WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD CONSTITUTES FUNDAMENTAL ERROR?

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, LAWRENCE and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

766 So. 2d 226, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10445, 1999 WL 560521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sapp-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack