JAMES C. BRADLEY, 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.
Bradley pleaded nolo contendere to grand larceny and was placed on probation with a $6,000 restitution condition. The trial court imposed restitution without notice or opportunity to be heard. The court reversed, holding that procedural due process requires notice and a hearing on restitution, and remanded for compliance with established requirements.
A trial court may not impose restitution as a condition of probation without first providing notice and an opportunity to be heard. The restitution amount must not exceed the actual damage caused by the criminal conduct and must be imposed in accordance with the procedural requirements established in Fresneda v. State and Hamm v. State.
[1] A defendant must be provided with notice of proposed restitution and given an opportunity to be heard on the amount before restitution can be ordered as a condition of pr…
[2] The amount of restitution ordered as a condition of probation may not exceed the damage caused by the criminal conduct of which the defendant was convicted.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“First, the defendant must be provided with notice of proposed restitution and given an opportunity to be heard on the amount.”
Establishes the procedural requirement of notice and hearing for restitution as a condition of probation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBradley was charged with two counts of grand larceny involving checks for $112.83 and $160.27. Pursuant to plea negotiations, the State dropped Count …
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 Restitution As Condition Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged with two counts of grand larceny for converting two separate checks to his own use; one in the amount of $112.83, the other in the amount of $160.27. Plea negotiations between the defendant and the State resulted in the State dropping Count II of the information and agreeing not to bring any future related charges. The defendant agreed to plead nolo contendere to Count I. At the sentencing hearing, the judge informed the defendant that he would have to pay $6,000 in restitution. Following the hearing, the order appealed from was entered placing appellant on probation. One of the conditions of probation was that defendant pay $6,000 in restitution to the victim. Shortly thereafter defendant filed a motion for correction and reduction of the sentence. The motion challenged the trial court’s authority to order the restitution without notice and an opportunity to be heard. The motion was denied and this appeal followed.
The procedure for requiring a defendant to pay restitution as a condition of probation is set out in Fresneda v. State, 347 So. 2d 1021 (Fla.1977). First, the defendant must be provided with notice of proposed restitution and given an opportunity to be heard on the amount. In addition, the amount of restitution ordered may not be in excess of the damage the criminal conduct caused the victim. See also Hamm v. State, 403 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1981).
The record discloses that prior to the sentencing hearing, the defendant did not receive notice that restitution would be a condition of probation. In addition, there is nothing in the record which would support a conclusion that the criminal conduct of which defendant was convicted caused $6,000 worth of damage. The Order appealed from is reversed insofar as restitution was made a condition of probation. This cause is remanded with directions to provide appellant with reasonable notice of any proposed restitution, and to afford him an opportunity to be heard on the amount of restitution, to be required. The hearing should be conducted in accordance with Fresneda and Hamm.
SHAW, JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fresneda v. State, 347 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1977)
- Hamm v. State, 403 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)