Strickland v. State
This text of 693 So. 2d 1142 (Strickland 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.
Opinion
Ronnie STRICKLAND, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; Michael A. Wasserman, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; James W. Rogers, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant's sentence but strike the attorney fee imposed because appellant was not informed that he had a right to challenge the assessment, which is fundamental error. See Neal v. State, 688 So.2d 392, 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)("[T]he state overlooks the fact that the supreme court has held that it is `fundamental' error to order a criminal defendant to pay attorney fees without affording adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard."). The fee may again be imposed on remand provided appellant is afforded adequate notice and an opportunity to contest its amount. Brock v. State, 667 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
MINER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
693 So. 2d 1142, 1997 WL 269180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strickland-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.