FREDDIE MCCASKILL, 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.
Freddie McCaskill was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon for beating his sister with a gun. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and the requirement for restitution but remanded because the trial court failed to set a specific dollar amount for restitution as required by statute.
The court held that while the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deferring the determination of the restitution amount to a future date (because the victim had not fully recovered), the sentencing order lacked sufficient specificity regarding the procedure for setting the amount. Therefore, the case must be remanded to the trial court to conduct a hearing and set the proper amount of restitution.
[1] A court may order a defendant to pay restitution to a victim for medical expenses.
[2] The amount of restitution must be determined by the court, not delegated to a probation officer or other party.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Section 948.03(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1985) states in clear and unambiguous language that the amount of restitution is 'to be determined by the court.'”
Establishes that the statutory requirement mandates judicial determination of restitution amounts and precludes delegation to other parties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcCaskill beat his sister about her head, face and arms with a gun, causing severe injuries. At sentencing, the victim was still in pain, had little u…
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 Delegation Of Judicial Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
Freddie McCaskill beat his sister about her head, face and arms with a gun, causing her to suffer severe injuries, and was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. At the time of sentencing, his sister was still in pain, had little use of her hand, and was required to wear a brace on her arm. The court sentenced McCas-kill to three years in prison, with credit for time served, followed by one year of probation. The court also ordered the defendant to pay court costs and restitution to his sister for her medical expenses, but did not fix the amount of restitution. McCaskill has appealed, urging as error the failure to set restitution in a specific amount. We find no error in the court’s determination to require restitution by the defendant in this case. We are persuaded, however, that the court erred in not setting the amount to be paid by the defendant.
Section 948.03(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1985) states in clear and unambiguous language that the amount of restitution is “to be determined by the court.” Hence, the determination of the amount of restitution may not be delegated to a juvenile counsel-or, J.J.S. v. State, 465 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), nor to a probation officer, Masslieno v. State, 498 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
No doubt it would have been reversible error for the court to explicitly order the probation officer to determine the amount of restitution. J.J.S. v. State, supra; Denson v. State, 493 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
While the sentence did not contain such direction, it nevertheless left the amount open for determination at a future time without directing 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 injuries at the time of sentencing, so the court did not abuse its discretion in leaving determination of the amount to a future date. Because the sentencing order lacked specificity regarding the procedure for setting the amount of restitution at some time in the future, however, we remand this cause to the trial court for hearing to set the proper amount of restitution. Cf. James v. State, 499 So. 2d 24.
REMANDED.
BOOTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Weckerle v. State, 579 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…on his payment “for all counseling expenses incurred by the victim, as directed by your Probation Officer.” Because counseling had not been completed, we find no abuse of discretion in failing to fix the amount of restitution, McCaskill v. State, 520 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), assuming that, at a future appropriate time, and upon application, the trial court will determine the amount of restitution to be paid pursuant to section 948.03(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1989). The duty may not be delegated…
-
Anderson v. State, 549 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…irst degree felony for any person who stands in a position of familial or custodial authority over a child between the ages of twelve and eighteen to engage in sexual activity with such child. . § 948.03(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1985); McCaskill v. State, 520 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); James v. State, 499 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Goodling v. State, 482 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Ballance v. State, 447 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). . Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959); cert. denied, 361…
-
Ivory Fairweather v. State, 596 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…sdiction only as to the amount of restitution to be paid. Section 948.03(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1989) does not specify when the court must determine the amount of restitution, which is a procedural matter within its discretion. McCaskill v. State, 520 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). A court does not abuse its discretion in leaving determination of the amount of restitution to a future date. Weckerle v. State, 579 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court had…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- James v. State, 499 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Denson v. State, 493 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- J.J.S. v. State, 465 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Masslieno v. State, 498 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)