T.W., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 it is reversible error for a trial court to delegate the judicial authority to determine the amount and manner of restitution to a counselor.
A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent and ordered to pay restitution, with the amount and manner to be determined by a counselor. The juvenile appeale…
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 Delinquency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a juvenile, was charged in a delinquency petition with breach of the peace, battery of a law enforcement officer, and resisting arrest. Upon hearing appellant was adjudged delinquent, placed in a community control program under supervision of the Youth Services Program, ordered to pay restitution in a manner and amount to be determined by the counselor, attend counseling, and abide by a curfew.
In this appeal it is contended that the trial judge committed reversible error in ordering that the amount and manner of restitution be determined by the counselor. We find merit in appellant’s contention.
In E. Y. v. State, 390 So. 2d 776 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), we held that it was reversible error for the trial court to delegate judicial authority to the juvenile’s counselor to determine the amount of restitution. For the reason stated, that portion of the order directing restitution in a manner and amount to be determined by the counselor is reversed. In all other respects the order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions to the court to afford appellant an evidentiary hearing as to the manner and amount of restitution to be paid to the victim.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.J.S. v. State, 465 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…; Glanton v. State, 415 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) We also agree with the appellant that it was reversible error for the lower court to order that the amount and manner of restitution be determined by the appellant’s counselor. In T.W. v. State, 395 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), our sister court held it was reversible error for the trial court to delegate a judicial duty to a juvenile’s counselor i.e. determining the amount and manner of restitution. This court also recognized that principle in Fletcher…
-
M.A.R. v. State, 433 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…rd both as to the appropriate amount of restitution to be made and as to the exact method and terms of payment. These matters must be adjudicated by the judge and cannot be delegated. See Fresneda v. State, 347 So. 2d 1021 (Fla.1977); T.W. v. State, 395 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); E.Y. v. State, 390 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Kroenke v. State, 366 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We do not agree that the trial judge may not order restitution in this case merely because he did not find appellant guilty o…
-
O.L. v. State, 497 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…A trial court may not, however, delegate its judicial authority to the parties to determine the amount or manner of restitution. See F.R. v. State, 473 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); J.J.S. v. State, 465 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); T.W. v. State, 395 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Since the trial court impermis-sibly delegated to the parties the authority to determine the manner of payment, and considering that the amount that O.L. will be required to pay per period has a bearing on the reasonableness of t…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- E. Y. v. State, 390 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)