DONALD DEAN WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the habitual offender sentence but reversed the public defender fee assessment imposed without an opportunity to object, requiring remand for a hearing.
A public defender fee assessment imposed without notice and opportunity to object must be reversed and remanded for a hearing.
[1] Public defender fees may not be assessed against a defendant without notice and an opportunity to object pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1).
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWright was convicted and sentenced as a habitual offender, and public defender fees were assessed against him without an opportunity to object.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Public Defender Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant raises two sentencing errors. We affirm without comment the sentence imposed upon him after he was found to qualify for treatment as a habitual offender. Baxter v. State, 599 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). As in Baxter, we certify conflict with the First and Fourth Districts on this issue as represented by Anderson v. State, 592 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and Van Bryant v. State, 602 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
We find merit, however, in the appellant’s second contention that fees for the services of the public defender were improperly assessed against him without an opportunity to object. Bull v. State, 548 So. 2d 1103 (Fla.1989); Bourque v. State, 595 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Like Bourque, we reverse and direct that on remand the appellant shall have thirty days from the date of the mandate within which to file a written objection to the amount assessed. If an objection is filed with the trial court, the assessment shall be stricken and a. new assessment shall not be imposed without notice and hearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1).
We affirm his convictions and sentence, but strike the fee assessment, and remand for possible further proceedings as outlined above.
DANAHY, A.C.J., HALL, J., and ROBERTS, SUSAN W., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bull v. State, 548 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1989)
- Bourque v. State, 595 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Anderson v. State, 592 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- van Bryant v. State, 602 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Baxter v. State, 599 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)