Piasecki v. State, 704 So. 2d 1134

DANAHY, Judge.

Appellate counsel has submitted an An-ders¹ brief, calling this court’s attention to three possible issues. We find merit in the third issue.

The third issue is that the trial court erred in imposing a public defender’s lien. The State concedes the error.

Accordmgly, we reverse the assessment of a public defender’s hen in this case. The trial court failed to advise the appellant of the statutory authority for its imposition, § 27.56, Fla. Stat. (1995), and the trial court failed to advise the appellant of his right to contest the amount of the fees. See § 27.56(7), Fla. Stat. (1995); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.720; Brown v. State, 506 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

On remand, the appellant shall be given thirty days from the date of the mandate to file a written objection to the amount of attorney’s fees imposed. If the appellant objects, the fees shall be stricken but may be reimposed based on the trial court’s findings following a fee healing. See Bourque v. State, 595 So.2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

Except as specified herein, the appellant’s judgment and sentence are affirmed.

PARKER, C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.

Notes

1 . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Case Details

Case Name: Piasecki v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Jan 21, 1998

Citations: 704 So. 2d 1134; 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 333; 1998 WL 17404; No. 96-02095

Docket Number: No. 96-02095

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.