STEPHEN SCULLEY, 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 appellate court affirmed a criminal conviction and sentence but struck the public defender lien. The court found that the trial court erred by not informing the appellant of his right to a hearing to contest the lien amount, deeming this a fundamental error. The court also certified conflict with another district's ruling on the same issue.
Yes, the imposition of the public defender lien was reversible error because the trial court failed to inform the appellant of his right to a hearing to contest the amount. The lien is therefore struck without prejudice.
[1] A criminal defendant must be informed of their right to a hearing to contest the amount of a public defender fee lien before it is imposed.
[2] Failure to inform a defendant of their right to a hearing to contest a public defender fee lien constitutes fundamental error.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We conclude that there is no reversible error affecting the judgment or length of sentence. Therefore, we affirm the conviction and sentence, except for the public defender fee imposed, because the trial court did not inform appellant of his right to a hearing to contest the amount thereof, before it imposed the lien.”
This quote summarizes the court's overall decision, affirming the conviction but reversing the imposition of the lien due to procedural error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted and sentenced, and a public defender lien was imposed. The public defender filed an Anders brief, indicating no reversible…
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 Direct Criminal Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
[*287] PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, the public defender has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and appellant has elected not to file a brief in proper person, although afforded an opportunity to do so.
We conclude that there is no reversible error affecting the judgment or length of sentence.
Therefore, we affirm the conviction and sentence, except for the public defender fee imposed, because the trial court did not inform appellant of his right to a hearing to contest the amount thereof, before it imposed the lien. See, e.g., Bailey v. State, 677 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (striking imposition of the public defender’s lien where the appellant was not informed that he had a right to challenge the $450 assessment).
Cf. Mitchell v. State, 678 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (affirming imposition of lien where record indicated that the trial court adequately informed Mitchell of his rights to contest the amount of the lien).
Consistent with our prior decisions, we consider these types of errors to be fundamental. See Matke v. State, No. 97-1386, - So. 2d -, 1998 WL 55968 (Fla. 1st DCA February 13, 1998); Strickland v. State, 693 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Neal v. State, 688 So. 2d 392, 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(“the supreme court has held that it is ‘fundamental’ error to order a criminal defendant to pay attorney fees without affording adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard”).
Accordingly, we strike the public defender lien without prejudice to reimpose it only after appellant is properly advised of his right to a hearing to contest the amount of the lien, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1).
We again recognize that the Fourth District has held that such errors are not fundamental, see Bryant v. State, 677 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Holmes v. State, 658 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), and therefore certify conflict with those decisions. See Matke, supra.
BARFIELD, C.J., and JOANOS and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sculley v. State, 763 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…5 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), review granted, 762 So. 2d 918 (Fla.1998), and struck a public defender lien without prejudice to reimpose the lien after the defendant was advised of his right to a hearing to contest the lien. See Sculley v. State, 742 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Thereafter, we stayed issuance of the mandate in this case pending the supreme court’s decision in Matice which would resolve the conflict between decisions of this court and the Fourth District Court of Appeal involving the sam…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Neal v. State, 688 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Holmes v. State, 658 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Mitchell v. State, 678 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Strickland v. State, 693 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Bailey v. State, 677 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Hendrickson v. Honorable Mark A. Speiser, 677 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Bryant v. State, 677 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)