Court Opinion

ID: 7685094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-30 03:18:09.274148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:26:35.231911
License: Public Domain

DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a sentence wherein appellant was given improper consecutive enhanced sentences. Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. den., — U.S.—, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994); Brooks v. State, 630 So.2d 527 (Fla.1993); Horn v. State, 642 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Without giving notice, the appellant, over his objection, was required to pay a public defender “lien.” See Fontenont v. State, 631 So.2d 379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Jones v. State, 623 So.2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Smith v. State, 622 So.2d 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Appellee confesses error by “acknowledging the holdings” of the pertinent case law.
SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.