GLENN HENRY SITEK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1997-10-08
No. 96-01039
DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
700 So. 2d 119 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1997) Caution
Cited by 4 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that the public defender's lien must be reversed because the appellant was not advised of his right to contest the amount, but the laboratory fee is affirmed as it was part of a written plea agreement.


Facts & Procedural History

The appellant was assessed a public defender's lien and a laboratory fee. The appellant argued the lien was improperly imposed.…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

[*120] PER CURIAM.

In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we agree with the appellant’s argument that the public defender’s lien in the amount of $150 must be reversed. See In re Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991) (defense counsel may raise various sentencing issues while raising them in context of Anders). With respect to the laboratory fee payable to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, however, we affirm its imposition as the product of a written plea agreement. Therefore, the appellant’s judgment and sentence is affirmed excepting any súbsequent proceedings addressing the public defender’s lien.

The trial court failed to advise the appellant of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of the public defender’s lien. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.720(d)(1). Thus, we remand this case with instructions to permit the appellant thirty days to file a written objection to the amount of the lien. If he files an objection, the circuit court must strike the lien and may not impose a new assessment without notice and a hearing. See Trice v. State, 655 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Bourque v. State, 595 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

Contrary to the public defender’s lien, the imposition of the fee of $100 to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement must be affirmed because the appellant agreed to pay it in his written plea agreement. See Stone v. State, 642 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Harris v. State, 515 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

Conviction and sentence affirmed; reversed and remanded as to lien.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Allen v. State, 172 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
    …t clear from the record that the firehrm fee was agreed to as part of the plea negotiations. Defense counsel never indicated this firearm fee was part of the plea agreement, and only stated to the court that “we’ve discussed it.” See Sitek v. State, 700 So. 2d 119, 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (finding the imposition of a laboratory fee “must be affirmed because the [defendant] agreed to pay it in [a] written plea agreement”). The State contends it may be assumed that the fee was part of the plea agreement by acqui…
  • Hardesty v. State, 709 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
    …o the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and a monetary award to his trial counsel. The circuit court ordered Hardesty to pay $100 to FDLE. Hardesty acceded to this fee in his written plea agreement. We find no error. See Sitek v. State, 700 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (affirming FDLE fee because it was part of written plea agreement). The court also awarded a fee to his court-appointed counsel in the amount of $150, but failed to give Hardesty the required notice of his right to contest the awa…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw