ANTONIO VILLARREAL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1987-12-02
No. 86-2163
SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
516 So. 2d 63 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1987) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that a trial court does not err by reserving jurisdiction to determine the amount of restitution at a later date as a condition of probation.

Facts & Procedural History

The appellant was placed on probation with restitution as a condition, but the amount was to be determined at a subsequent hearing. The appellant acce…

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.

Topics
Restitution As Condition Of Probation Reservation Of Jurisdiction Probation Conditions Preservation Of Issues For Appeal

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Restitution As Condition Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
HALL, Judge.

HALL, Judge.

Antonio Villarreal appeals the order placing him on probation. He contends that the trial court erred in ordering an unspecified amount of restitution as a condition of his probation. We affirm.

At the sentencing hearing the trial court stated that as a special condition of probation the appellant would be required to make restitution to the victims in an amount to be determined at a subsequent hearing. The order of probation indicates that the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of restitution at a later date. Counsel for the appellant expressed concern about the propriety of restitution. The trial court gave the appellant an opportunity to withdraw his plea, but the appellant abandoned his objection and accepted the imposition of restitution as a special condition of probation. We note that the appellant did not object to the determination of the amount of restitution at a later date.

Objection must be made at the time restitution is imposed in order to preserve the issue for review. Spivey v. State, 501 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). However, in this appeal the appellant seems to be objecting not to the imposition of restitution but to the failure of the court to determine the amount of restitution at sentencing.

We find no error in the trial court’s action. The dictates of justice and judicial economy mandate that the trial court not be required to determine the amount of restitution at the time of sentencing.

We therefore affirm the order of probation without prejudice to the appellant to appeal the order setting the amount of restitution after the trial court has determined said amount at a hearing.

Affirmed.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Smith v. State, 589 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
    …June 13,1988, and then determine the actual amount of restitution at a hearing held on October 3, 1990. We disagree. A trial court may properly determine the amount of restitution at a hearing subsequent to the sentencing date. Villarreal v. State, 516 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The 60-day limitation provided by Rule 3.800(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, for modifying a sentence, does not apply in this case since (1) the court did in fact order restitution at the time of Smith’s sentencing; and…
  • Jaramillo v. Dubow, 588 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
    …ary judgment rule, Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.510, to submit affidavits and other evidentiary materials in support of, or in opposition to, the motion. See Forbes v. Gimbel, 539 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Reno v. Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, Inc., 516 So. 2d 63, 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c); see also Stone v. Stone, 97 So. 2d 352, 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957); cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) (procedure under the counterpart federal rule). Clearly, this procedure was not followed in the instant case.1 The…
  • Richard Derouin & KIM Derouin v. Universal Am. Mortg. Co., LLC, 254 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw