STEVEN HOUSER, 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.
Appellate court struck the habitual offender adjudication for a cocaine possession conviction and the public defender's lien imposed without proper notice, but affirmed the underlying convictions and sentences.
A habitual offender adjudication cannot be imposed for a possession with intent to sell offense, and a public defender's lien cannot be imposed without prior notice and opportunity to object.
[1] Possession of cocaine with intent to sell is excluded from consideration under the habitual felony offender statute, Fla. …
[2] A public defender's lien cannot be imposed without prior notice to the defendant and an opportunity to object to the amount within 30 days.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSteven Houser was convicted of sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to sell, and was adjudicated a habitual felony offender for both …
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'S Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
In this Anders appeal,1 Steven Houser was convicted of sale of cocaine (count one) and possession of cocaine with intent to sell (count two). Houser was adjudicated a habitual felony offender for both convictions and received concurrent 12-year sentences. We conclude that it was error to adjudicate Houser as a habitual offender as to the possession offense, as that type of offense is excluded from consideration under the habitual offender statute. See § 775.084(l)(a)(3), Fla.Stat. (1993). See also Jackson v. State, 651 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Accordingly, we strike the habitual offender adjudication as to count two.
We also conclude that it was error to impose a public defender’s hen in the amount of $250 where Houser was not given prior notice of the lien or informed at sentencing that he had 30 days to object to the amount. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720(d)(1). See also Bull v. State, 548 So. 2d 1103 (Fla.1989); Burke v. State, 642 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). We strike the public defender’s hen, without prejudice on remand to reimpose it after proper notice is furnished. In all other respects, the judgment and sentences are affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part; HABITUAL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION and PUBLIC DEFENDER’S LIEN STRICKEN; and REMANDED.
GOSHORN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Denson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…, Fla. Stat. (1995), and that the offense could be used to qualify Mr. Denson for treatment as a habitual offender. Although the Fifth District has held that possession of cocaine with intent to sell is not a qualifying offense, see Houser v. State, 666 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), we agree with the trial court that .conspiracy to traffic may be a qualifying offense. There is no question that Mr. Denson preserved this issue for review by his arguments and objections in the trial court, and therefore this c…
-
Watson Grene v. State, 702 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…ith intent to sell is a violation of § 893.13 which relates to the possession of a controlled substance, habitual offender sentencing was improper. See § 775.084(l)(a)(3); Williams v. State, 667 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Houser v. [*511] State, 666 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Palmer v. State, 664 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Jackson v. State, 651 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Perez v. State, 647 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); cf. Tucker v. State, 608 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), aff'd on oth…
-
Williams v. State, 667 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…tion of § 775.084(l)(a), (3) to only purchase or possession offenses. We do not agree. The Fifth District has applied section 775.084(l)(a), (3), Florida Statutes (1993) in this context to only purchase or possession offenses. See Houser v. State, 666 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Jackson v. State, 651 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). In addition, Williams’ contention that there is no reason to treat the sale of cocaine differently than the purchase or possession of cocaine is eom-pletely without merit. Th…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Bull v. State, 548 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1989)
- Bunch v. Hon. Carl Markel, 642 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Marchell D. Jackson v. State, 651 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)