Sculley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sculley v. State

763 So. 2d 1242, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7520, 2000 WL 775551

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 19, 2000

DocketNo. 1D96-3711

StatusPublished

This text of 763 So. 2d 1242 (Sculley 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

Sculley v. State, 763 So. 2d 1242, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7520, 2000 WL 775551 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

ON MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

In an opinion issued June 1, 1998, this court followed our earlier decision in Matice v. State, 765 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 762 So.2d 918 (Fla.1998), and struck a public defender lien without prejudice to reimpose the lien after the defendant was advised of his right to a hearing to contest the lien. See Sculley v. State, 742 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Thereafter, we stayed issuance of the mandate in this case pending the supreme court’s decision in Matice which would resolve the conflict between decisions of this court and the Fourth District Court of Appeal involving the same legal issue.

In a recent decision, the Florida Supreme Court disapproved this court’s decision in Matice. See Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000). Counsel for the State filed a motion to vacate judgment, repre[1243]*1243senting that counsel for appellant has advised that appellant wishes to file a post-conviction challenge in the trial court and is unable to do so until the decision here is quashed and jurisdiction is relinquished. Respective counsel agree that this court’s decision should be quashed without further delay, the trial court’s judgment should be affirmed, and this cause should be returned to the trial court for any appropriate post-conviction motion which appellant may wish to file.

Accordingly, we grant the motion to vacate judgment, quash the decision entered June 1, 1998, pursuant to Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000), and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

BARFIELD, C.J., JOANOS and KAHN, JJ„ CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

ON MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

In an opinion issued June 1, 1998, this court followed our earlier decision in Matice v. State, 765 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 762 So.2d 918 (Fla.1998), and struck a public defender lien without prejudice to reimpose the lien after the defendant was advised of his right to a hearing to contest the lien. See Sculley v. State, 742 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Thereafter, we stayed issuance of the mandate in this case pending the supreme court’s decision in Matice which would resolve the conflict between decisions of this court and the Fourth District Court of Appeal involving the same legal issue.

In a recent decision, the Florida Supreme Court disapproved this court’s decision in Matice. See Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000). Counsel for the State filed a motion to vacate judgment, repre[1243]*1243senting that counsel for appellant has advised that appellant wishes to file a post-conviction challenge in the trial court and is unable to do so until the decision here is quashed and jurisdiction is relinquished. Respective counsel agree that this court’s decision should be quashed without further delay, the trial court’s judgment should be affirmed, and this cause should be returned to the trial court for any appropriate post-conviction motion which appellant may wish to file.

Accordingly, we grant the motion to vacate judgment, quash the decision entered June 1, 1998, pursuant to Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000), and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

BARFIELD, C.J., JOANOS and KAHN, JJ„ CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

763 So. 2d 1242, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7520, 2000 WL 775551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sculley-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack