Ciccia v. State (854 So. 2d 243, 2003)

PER CURIAM.

In Appellant’s direct criminal appeal, the public defender filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We agree there are no meritorious issues for appeal and affirm the judgment and sentence. However, Appellant correctly argues that the trial court erred in failing to give him notice and an opportunity to object to the amount assessed for the public defender’s fees, an issue which was preserved for appeal by the denial of his rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. The public defender’s fee and hen are therefore stricken, without prejudice to being reimposed on remand after the proper procedure is followed. See, e.g., Holm v. State, 784 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Fisher v. State, 697 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with instructions.

WARNER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.