IN THE INTEREST OF D.T., A CHILD
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.
A trial court cannot impose a condition of restitution after a juvenile has completed an order of community control that did not originally include restitution.
A juvenile completed a community control order that did not include restitution as part of a plea bargain. Subsequently, the trial court attempted to …
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 Modification Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
At issue is the trial court’s authority to impose a condition of restitution upon a juvenile after entry and performance of an order of community control which contains no condition of restitution. We hold that the trial court was without authority to do so and remand with direction to quash the order of restitution.
In Carmo v. State, 378 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), we reversed the imposition of a post-conviction condition of restitution upon a convicted adult probationer when there had been no violation of probation. There, as here, restitution was not mentioned at the time of conviction. Subsequently, we extended the same rule to juveniles in In the Interest of V. McD., 472 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
We note two other matters which bear mention. First, the child here had performed in accordance with the order, which resulted from a plea bargain. Courts will not let a defendant be prejudiced as a result of good faith reliance upon an agreement by the prosecution. Nova v. State, 439 So. 2d 255, 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).1 Withdrawal of the plea in this case after completion of the bargained forty hours of community service would have been inappropriate.
Second, section 39.10, Florida Statutes (1983), for reasons unexplained to us, makes no provision for modification in the absence of adjudication. There was no adjudication in the present case. Section 39.- 11, Florida Statutes (1983) provides for adjudication and modification thereafter. HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur. . A defendant is not entitled to specific performance against the court of an agreement with the prosecution, absent a showing of irrevocable prejudice to the defendant resulting from the agreement. See Simpson v. State, 467 So. 2d 437, 439 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), and cases cited therein.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reed v. State, 539 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…t which fits the circumstances of the crime and the particular criminal; therefore, expediency has no place in formulating the judge’s act.” 308 So. 2d at 29. (Footnotes omitted). Although defendant relies on cases such as In the Interest of D.T., 477 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) for the proposition that new conditions cannot be imposed by the court after the defendant has performed the conditions of the court’s order, we need not reach that issue because the record refutes defendant’s contention that the…
-
Hodas v. State, 603 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…throughout all earlier proceedings, indicated that he would need a few minutes to look over the file. The case was later recalled, but apparently took place without the presence of Hodas’ counsel. Restitution is a part of sentencing, D.T. v. State, 477 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), and the assistance of counsel is required at this critical stage of the criminal proceedings. Bowman v. State, 550 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); and Brown v. State, 479 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). In any event, the record…
-
Chaney v. State, 617 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…n condition requiring defendant to make restitution stricken where it was not imposed at sentencing); Pooley v. State, 403 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (legal sentence cannot be increased after defendant had begun serving it); In Interest of D.T., 477 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (trial court had no authority to impose restitution after entry and performance of probation or community control order which contained no order of restitution). The untimely order of restitution must be quashed. Glee v. State, 5…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest v. McD., 472 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Nova v. State, 439 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Carmo v. State, 378 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Simpson v. State, 467 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)