WILLIAM F. CASLER, SR., 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.
Defendant's restitution as a condition of probation was reversed because he received no notice that the state would seek restitution, and the 1984 amendment to section 775.089 did not apply retroactively to crimes committed before its effective date.
Restitution as a condition of probation must be imposed only after the defendant receives notice that the state will seek restitution.
[1] Restitution as a condition of probation requires prior notice to the defendant that the state will seek restitution, and the 1984 amendment to section 775.089 does not ap…
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 intelligenceDefendant was sentenced to probation with restitution as a condition. The defendant's crime occurred before the effective date of the 1984 amendment t…
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 Sentencing Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
Defendant appeals from the imposition of restitution as a condition of probation. We reverse.
Defendant contends that imposition of restitution as a condition of probation was erroneous because he had been given no notice that the state would seek to impose restitution. The state, citing Gilmore v. State, 479 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), argues that the 1984 amendment to section 775.089, Florida Statutes, provides for restitution and that defendant was thereby on notice that restitution would be considered as a part of his sentencing. We disagree with the state. Defendant’s crime in this case occurred before the effective date of the amendment. The amendment therefore does not apply here, and defendant should have been given notice that the state would seek restitution as a condition of probation. See Gilford v. State, 487 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
This cause is reversed and remanded for another hearing on the matter of restitution, at which the defendant will have the opportunity to be heard on the amount of restitution and to raise any objections, including objections to the assessment of the attorney’s fees incurred by the victim which were included in the restitution imposed and to which defendant objects as his second issue on appeal.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 508 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1981) to show ineffective assistance of counsel. We are unable to say that she has not met those requirements since the trial court did not attach any portion of the record to its order denying relief. See Blanco v. State, 502 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Swain v. State, 502 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the attachment to the order of pertinent portions of the record showing that appellant is not entitled to relief, or for further proceedings…
-
Brown v. State, 513 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1981). to show ineffective assistance of counsel. We are unable to say that he has not met those requirements since the trial judge did not attach any portion of the record to his order denying relief. See Blanco v. State, 502 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) and Swain v. State, 502 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the attachment to the order of pertinent portions of the record showing that appellant is not entitled to relief or for further proceedin…
Authorities Cited
- McLAIN v. Palm Beach Cnty., 479 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Gilford v. State, 487 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)