MICHAEL SCOTT HAMRICK, 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.
The court affirmed the restitution order on the ability-to-pay issue but reversed and remanded because the trial court unlawfully delegated to the probation officer the determination of the restitution amount, which must be determined by the court.
A trial court cannot delegate to a probation officer the determination of the amount of restitution; the court must determine the amount itself.
[1] A trial court must determine the amount of restitution itself and cannot delegate that responsibility to a probation officer.
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 intelligence“the amount of restitution is 'to be determined by the court'”
Court citing Fla. Stat. § 948.03(1)(e) to establish that restitution amounts must be judicially determined
Michael Scott Hamrick appealed an order of restitution, challenging both the trial court's failure to determine his ability to pay and the unspecified…
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 Ability To Pay Restitution cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant Michael Scott Hamrick seeks review of an order of restitution, urging that the trial court erred in failing to determine whether he had the ability to pay restitution and in ordering an unspecified amount of restitution. We affirm in part and reverse in part, and remand with directions. As to the initial issue that the trial court erred in failing to determine whether appellant had the ability to pay restitution, we find that issue waived by appellant’s failure to make any objection below, and affirm. See Morgan v. State, 491 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Appellant next contends that the trial court erred by unlawfully delegating its responsibility to the probation officer to determine the correct amount of restitution. We agree. Section 948.03(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1987), clearly provides that the amount of restitution is “to be determined by the court.” See also McCaskill v. State, 520 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Shipley v. State, 512 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), approved as to restitution, disapproved on other grounds, 528 So. 2d 902 (Fla.1988); and James v. State, 499 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
We therefore reverse the order of restitution in part and remand with directions that the trial court conduct a hearing for the purpose of determining the correct amount of restitution appellant is required to pay.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Calhoun v. State, 546 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…tion to be later determined by the probation officer. We agree and reverse that provision of the order of probation. Section 948.03(1)(e), Fla.Stat. (1987) provides that the amount of restitution is “to be determined by the court.” Hamrick v. State, 532 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). We reverse the order of restitution in part and remand with directions that the trial court conduct a hearing for the purpose of determining the amount of restitution Calhoun will be required to pay and to amend the order of p…
-
Butts v. State, 575 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…Spivey v. State, 531 So. 2d 965, 967, n. 2 (Fla.1988); Williams v. State, 565 So. 2d 849, 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Dickens v. State, 556 So. 2d 782, 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Abbott v. State, 543 So. 2d 411, 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Hamrick v. State, 532 So. 2d 71, 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Morgan v. State, 491 So. 2d 326, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In short, a defendant must affirmatively assert his rights under section 775.089(6), when he is given the opportunity to do so. In the instant case, the state correc…
-
Waller v. State, 550 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…PER CURIAM. The trial court has the responsibility to determine the correct amount of restitution under section 948.03(l)(e), Florida Statutes, and in this case erred in delegating its responsibility to the probation officer. See Hamrick v. State, 532 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The appellant’s other point on appeal is without merit. That part of the order of probation providing for restitution to be determined by the probation officer is reversed and the cause is remanded for the trial court to deter…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shipley v. State, 528 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1988)
- McCASKILL v. State, 520 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- James v. State, 499 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Morgan v. State, 491 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Shipley v. State, 512 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)