M.T.C., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
M.T.C., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
679 So. 2d 67
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1996)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm M.T.C.’s adjudication and disposition. However, in so doing, we strike the imposition of the public defender’s fee because the court failed to apprise the juvenile or his parents of their right to contest the amount as required by rule 3.720(d)(1), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. On remand, the fee may be reimposed upon compliance with the rule. See, e.g., Green v. State, 650 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED.
PETERSON, C.J., and COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . See 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
-
J.R.V. v. State, 715 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ived, ensure by a “ ‘thorough inquiry”’ that the waiver is free and intelligent; and 3) afford appellant an opportunity to enter a new plea to. the charges in the petition. See N.R.L. v. State, 684 So. 2d 299, 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); J.H. v. State, 679 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); In Interest of D.L.A., 667 So. 2d 330, 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Appellant contends secondly that the trial court erred by failing to determine that he entered his plea freely and intelligently because it failed to determine a f…
-
B.F. v. State, 747 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…ved, ensure by a “ ‘thorough inquiry’ ” that the waiver is free and intelligent; .and 3) afford appellant an opportunity to enter a new plea to the charges in the petition. See N.R.L. v. State, 684 So. 2d 299, 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); J.H. v. State, 679 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); In Interest of D.L.A., 667 So. 2d 330, 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Id. at 1139. Also similar is D.L. v. State, 719 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). There, in finding that the court should have granted the juvenile’s later motion t…
-
M.K.L. v. State, 686 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…of their right to contest the amount as required by Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1),. On remand, the fee may be reimposed upon compliance with the rule. See, e.ff., B.L. v. State, 679 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); M.T.C. v. State, 679 So. 2d 67 [*794] (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Green v. State, 650 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED. DAUKSCH, W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Green v. State, 650 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Olson v. Potter, 650 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)