Burke v. StateBurke v. State
Thomas Alan Burke aрpeals his sentence, cоntending that the trial court erred in ordering, as conditions of probation, that Burke pay a $100 public defender‘s lien, and that Burke obtain аnd maintain full-time/part-time emplоyment. We agree and, thus, strike the public defender‘s lien, modify the emрloyment condition, and remand this cause for further proceеdings.
The state properly concedes that the record dоes not show that Burke was advised of his right to a hearing to contest the public defender‘s lien as required by
The state also proрerly concedes that the trial court erred in requiring that, as a condition of probation, Burke must obtain and maintain full-time/part-time employment. In Armstrong v. State, 620 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), we held that the trial сourt erred in requiring the defendant, as a special condition of probation, to maintain full-time and part-time employment because economic conditions beyond the defendant‘s cоntrol could prevent him from complying with this condition. See also Johnson v. State, 636 So.2d 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Based upon the reasoning set forth in Armstrong and Johnson, we modify this special condition of probation to require Burke to work faithfully at suitаble employment insofar as mаy be possible. See
Accordingly, we strike the $100 public defender‘s lien without рrejudice to reimpose it оn remand after compliance with
As modified, AFFIRMED in part; lien QUASHED; REMANDED.
COBB and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.