TONY BERNARD MILTON, 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 while the assessment of investigation expenses was proper, the order of restitution was invalid without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Appellant was ordered to pay investigation expenses and restitution as part of his probation. He appealed, arguing the restitution order violated his …
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 Order cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Appellant appeals his order of probation contending that it is contrary to Fresneda v. State, 347 So. 2d 1021 (Fla.1977). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
First, we affirm the assessment against appellant of the expense incurred by the City of Havana in its investigation relating to appellant’s sale of cannabis. In this regard, we find the decision in Cuba v. State, 362 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)-persuasive and adopt its reasoning on whether the state is an aggrieved party for purposes of section 948.03(1)(g), Florida Statutes. See also Ballance v. State, 447 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), wherein this court implicitly approved Cuba.
Second, we reverse and remand this cause to the trial judge for the purpose of providing appellant with reasonable notice of the proposed restitution and to afford appellant an opportunity to be heard on the amount of the restitution. Here, restitution was ordered at the same time as appellant was placed on probation at the sentencing hearing. This does not satisfy the notice requirements mandated by Fresneda, supra. See also Blincoe v. State, 371 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); DiOrio v. State, 359 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Accordingly, this cause is remanded for the purpose of conducting a restitution hearing as required by Fresneda. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED with directions.
MILLS and WIGGINTON, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
K.M.C. v. State, 485 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…e medical expenses of the victim on the conditions stated in the order. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. MODIFIED and AFFIRMED. THOMPSON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. . Ballance v. State, 447 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Milton v. State, 453 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Rose v. State, 434 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). . Brown v. Cadillac Motor Car Div., 468 So. 2d 903 (Fla.1985).…
-
Gluesenkamp v. State, 636 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…endments, section 775.089 provided that restitution be made to the "aggrieved party.” The former statute did not provide a definition of "aggrieved party.” . The state cites Ballance v. State, 447 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) and Milton v. State, 453 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The state’s reliance on Ballance and Milton is misplaced since those cases involved the award of restitution to aggrieved parties other than the victim prior to the 1984 amendments to section 775.089, Florida Statutes.…
Authorities Cited
- Fresneda v. State, 347 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1977)
- Ballance v. State, 447 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Nery S. Cuba and Tomas Rafael Llamas-Almaguer v. State, 362 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- DiORIO v. State, 359 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Tapper v. Taunton, 371 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Blincoe v. State, 371 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)