Sims v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sims v. State

82 So. 3d 825, 2011 WL 1004550, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3906

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 23, 2011

Docket4D09-3274

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 So. 3d 825 (Sims 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

Sims v. State, 82 So. 3d 825, 2011 WL 1004550, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3906 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Arthur Sims, argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in two respects and that the trial court erred in imposing a public defender fee without advising Sims of his right to contest the amount. We affirm Sims’s conviction in this direct appeal because his arguments that his counsel was ineffective are not apparent on the face of the record. See Aversano v. State, 966 So.2d 493, 494-95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). We do, however, strike the public defender fee and remand for a hearing for Sims to contest the amount of the public defender fee. See Johnson v. State, 944 So.2d 474, 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that failure to advise defendant of his right to contest a public defender fee pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720 requires that fee “must be stricken, without prejudice to being reimposed on remand after the proper procedure is followed”). The state concedes the error.

Affirmed in part; remanded in part.

POLEN, HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Arthur Sims, argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in two respects and that the trial court erred in imposing a public defender fee without advising Sims of his right to contest the amount. We affirm Sims’s conviction in this direct appeal because his arguments that his counsel was ineffective are not apparent on the face of the record. See Aversano v. State, 966 So.2d 493, 494-95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). We do, however, strike the public defender fee and remand for a hearing for Sims to contest the amount of the public defender fee. See Johnson v. State, 944 So.2d 474, 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that failure to advise defendant of his right to contest a public defender fee pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720 requires that fee “must be stricken, without prejudice to being reimposed on remand after the proper procedure is followed”). The state concedes the error.

Affirmed in part; remanded in part.

POLEN, HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 So. 3d 825, 2011 WL 1004550, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sims-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack