Pauda v. State

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.