IN THE INTEREST OF E.J.R., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1996-08-16
No. 96-213
W. SHARP, GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
678 So. 2d 479 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1996) Caution
Cited by 4 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the Order of Disposition but the condition requiring the child and the parents to repay Orange County $150 for the public defender’s fee is stricken. Notice was not given of imposition of the fee or of the right to challenge the amount as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1). On remand, the fee may be reimposed after compliance with the rule.

Disposition AFFIRMED; Public Defender’s Fee STRICKEN; REMANDED.

W. SHARP, GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Landingham v. Landingham, 685 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
    …eterminations involving custody where the overwhelming concern is the best interests of the child. See Mize, supra; Ward v. Ward, — So. 2d —, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1961 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 30, 1996). . See Judge Harris' concurrence in Hagins v. Hagins, 678 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), identifying a number of reasons behind this public policy.…
  • Mahnke v. Rice, 703 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
    …the move is based on a “founded belief that relocation is best for the well being of [the custodial] parent and the children.” [Emphasis added.] Russenberger v. Russenberger, 669 So. 2d 1044, 1046 (Fla.1996). But this case, as did Hagins v. Hagins, 678 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), involves a relocation restriction based on a stipulation which maintained the status quo (the child must remain in the locale until further action) and reserved, at least by implication, a hearing based on the section 61.13(3) c…
    1 / 2
  • Catron v. Catron, 708 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
    …ever determining — either at the time of the original dissolution or at the hearing for modification— that the father would be an appropriate parent for primary custody under the statutory criteria. The children deserve better. See Hagins v. Hagins, 678 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (Harris, J. concurring specially); Mahnke v. Rice, 703 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (Harris, J., concurring specially).…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw