PAMELA SMITH KROENKE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a trial court cannot delegate the authority to determine the amount of restitution to a probation officer without a hearing.
Appellant pled nolo contendere to armed burglary and was placed on probation with restitution. The trial court ordered restitution but delegated the d…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Pamela Smith Kroenke appeals her placement on probation for armed burglary. She raises two points on appeal, one of which has merit and requires that the cause be remanded for further proceedings.
Appellant pled nolo contendere to the charge against her pursuant to a plea bargain that she would be placed on probation for five years with the special condition that she make restitution of the property taken in the instant burglary and two others. The trial court provided in its order that the amount of restitution was to be determined by appellant’s probation officer. Our supreme court held in Fresneda v. State, 347 So. 2d 1021 (Fla.1977), that before restitution is ordered, the defendant must be given notice of the proposed restitution order and an opportunity to be heard as to the amount. Here, appellant obviously had notice, but the required hearing as to amount was not held. Instead the court delegated the authority to determine the amount to appellant’s probation supervisor. This was improper. Accordingly, the cause is remanded with instructions to hold a hearing as to the amount of restitution as required by Fresneda. Appellant’s other point having, been determined to be without merit, the order placing appellant on probation is in all other respects affirmed.
OTT, Acting C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.