Sapp v. State

766 So. 2d 226, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10445, 1999 WL 560521
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Sapp v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 763 So. 2d 1257
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 3, 1999·No. No. 98-3828·Published

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

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

766 So. 2d 226 (Sapp v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Locke v. State
719 So. 2d 1249 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Dodson v. State
710 So. 2d 159 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)