From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sitek v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 8, 1997
700 So. 2d 119 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

Summary

finding the imposition of a laboratory fee “must be affirmed because the [defendant] agreed to pay it in written plea agreement”

Summary of this case from Allen v. State

Opinion

Case No. 96-01039.

Opinion filed October 8, 1997.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; E. Randolph Bentley, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Timothy J. Ferreri, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ron Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (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 Brief, 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 subsequent 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.


Summaries of

Sitek v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 8, 1997
700 So. 2d 119 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

finding the imposition of a laboratory fee “must be affirmed because the [defendant] agreed to pay it in written plea agreement”

Summary of this case from Allen v. State

finding the imposition of a laboratory fee “must be affirmed because the [defendant] agreed to pay it in written plea agreement”

Summary of this case from Allen v. State

affirming FDLE fee because it was part of written plea agreement

Summary of this case from Hardesty v. State
Case details for

Sitek v. State

Case Details

Full title:GLENN HENRY SITEK, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Oct 8, 1997

Citations

700 So. 2d 119 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

Citing Cases

Hardesty v. State

We find no error. See Sitek v. State, 700 So.2d 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (affirming FDLE fee because it was…

Allen v. State

Defense counsel never indicated this firearm fee was part of the plea agreement, and only stated to the court…