ALONZO VERNON JAMES, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a probation order with an indeterminate restitution amount but remanded for the trial court to hold a hearing and specify the exact restitution amount, as courts cannot delegate the responsibility to determine restitution to probation officers.
A trial court must hold a hearing to determine and specify the exact amount of restitution in a probation order rather than leaving it to be determined later by a probation officer.
[1] A trial court must hold a hearing to determine the specific amount of restitution and amend the probation order accordingly, rather than delegating this responsibility to…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames was placed on probation with a condition to pay restitution in an amount to be determined at a subsequent hearing, with the trial court directin…
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 Amount Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James appeals from an order of probation directing him, as one of the conditions of his probation, to pay restitution “in an amount to be determined to [the victim]_” At sentencing, the court announced on the record that the restitution would be “in an amount to be determined at a subsequent hearing in this cause.” The court also directed: “The probation officer will attempt to determine the exact amount, and furnish that to counsel and, if possible, we can have a stipulation and not have a hearing on it.” Apparently, no request for a hearing, or for amendment of the probation order to specify a particular amount, was ever made. Instead, this appeal was filed.
First, we would like to note that this Court views with disfavor the frivolous exercise of the right to appeal on an issue which could easily have been initially brought to the trial court’s attention and remedied. Nevertheless, we affirm the order of probation since the record is silent as to whether the trial court did indeed improperly delegate its responsibility to determine the amount of restitution. Cf. Masslieno v. State, 498 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). However, in order to avoid such error, the cause is remanded for the court to hold a prompt hearing to establish the amount and to amend the order accordingly. See Goodling v. State, 482 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); J.J.S. v. State, 465 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Ballance v. State, 447 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); and Hamm v. State, 403 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
SMITH, THOMPSON and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
McCASKILL v. State, 520 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…irecting whether the amount would be set by the court upon hearing or by the probation officer upon presentation of appropriate medical bills. While the latter course would clearly be error, the former would not necessarily be error. James v. State, 499 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The cited statute does not specify when the court must determine the amount, and we conclude that to be a procedural matter falling within the discretion of the trial court. Here, the victim had not fully recovered from her in…1 / 2
-
Wheeler v. State, 807 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…to counsel. For instance, in Bing v. State, 745 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), the trial court mistakenly concluded that an indigent defendant can never be entitled to appointed counsel in a postconviction proceeding. Similarly, in Davis v. State, 499 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), the court was concerned about the fact that the decision had not been made according to the standards set in the Graham decision. The requests for counsel were untimely in Bing and Davis, but in each of these cases, the court wa…
-
Witherspoon v. State, 634 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…ere then used by the State in its argument that the motion should be denied. This role reversal should have indicated to the trial judge that the appellant was not making a fair presentation of his case. This case is very similar to Davis v. State, 499 So. 2d 24, 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), which presented the same issue that his trial attorney did not interview and use alibi witnesses. As in Davis, we have no information as to appellant’s education or ability to represent himself in an adversarial proceeding.…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ballance v. State, 447 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Hamm v. State, 403 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- J.J.S. v. State, 465 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Goodling v. State, 482 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Masslieno v. State, 498 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)