Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

647 So. 2d 1077

Pauda v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 6, 1995

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1995-01-06

Relies on Sowashee Venture v. EB, Inc. · 630 So. 2d 521 - Hale v. State · 630 So. 2d 527 - Brooks v. State

Decided 1995-01-06

DAUKSCH, Judge.

¶1This 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.

¶2SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
/647/so2d/1077 · .json · Public domain