ANTHONY CARL NATHAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1988-02-24
No. 86-2801
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and PARKER, JJ., concur.
520 So. 2d 317 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1988) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

[*318] PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from appellant’s conviction of battery and affray, we find error only in that the trial court delegated to appellant’s probation or community control officer the determination of the amount of restitution appellant was to make. On remand, the amount of any restitution to be imposed shall be determined by the trial court. Mansell v. State, 498 So. 2d 604 (Fla.2d DCA 1986); Buchanan v. State, 483 So. 2d 537 (Fla.2d DCA 1986). Appellant’s convictions are otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and PARKER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Snyder v. State, 597 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
    …t the trial court intended Snyder’s probation officer to establish the amount of restitution, the amount of restitution must be determined by the trial court, and the trial court cannot delegate this duty to a probation officer. See Nathan v. State, 520 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Perry v. State, 513 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The state argues that the issue of restitution is moot because the trial court revoked Snyder’s probation and the trial court did not order Snyder to pay restitution in the sent…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw