FREDDY ROJAS, 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 acceptance of the guilty plea and the sentence imposed, but remanded for entry of a proper revocation order and for a hearing on the public defender's lien.
Freddy Rojas pleaded guilty to violating probation. The trial court accepted the plea and imposed a sentence but failed to orally describe the violati…
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 Order Of Revocation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Freddy Rojas suggests possible error with respect to the trial court’s acceptance of Rojas’s guilty plea to a violation of probation, the sentence imposed, the imposition of a public defender’s lien, and the failure to file an order of revocation of probation. We affirm the trial court’s acceptance of Rojas’s guilty plea, as well as the sentence.
As the State concedes, the trial court summarily found that Rojas had violated his probation, but it did not orally describe the violation or enter a written order of revocation. Therefore, we remand for. entry of a proper order of revocation setting forth the conditions of probation to which Rojas pleaded guilty. See Hill v. State, 599 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
The State also acknowledges that the trial court failed to inform Rojas of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of the public defender’s lien. We remand to allow him thirty days from the date of this court’s mandate to file a written objection to the amount assessed for public defender fees. See Hinkle v. State, 675 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Bourque v. State, 595 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In the event an objection is filed, the trial court shall strike the current assessment and shall not impose a new one without proper notice and hearing. 675 So. 2d at 622.
Affirmed in part, and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McAFFEE v. State, 779 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…herefore affirm. Since, however, the trial court failed to enter a written revocation order setting forth the express probationary conditions that McAffee violated, this cause is remanded for entry of an appropriate order. [*300] See Rojas v. State, 711 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Affirmed; remanded. CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.…
-
Hoag v. State, 717 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…ly filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Crim [*102] inal Procedure 3.172(f), without prejudice to him to file a rule 3.850 motion. He has now filed such a motion and it is from its denial by the trial court that this appeal is taken. See Hoag v. State, 711 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA1997). The only assertion in Hoag’s two motions in the trial court and subsequent appeals to this court which has not been correctly resolved is the unusual sworn allegation that upon acceptance of his plea the trial court allowed him…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Bourque v. State, 595 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Hill v. State, 599 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Hinkle v. State, 675 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)