STEVEN PERRY FLANAGAN, 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 held that hearsay evidence is permissible to determine the amount of restitution unless the defendant raises a bona fide challenge to the amount at the hearing.
Appellant challenged the trial court's use of information from a presentence investigation report to determine restitution. Appellant did not challeng…
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
CAMPBELL, Chief Judge.
The only issue necessary for us to discuss in this appeal is the propriety of the restitution imposed upon appellant since appellant’s other issue has previously been decided by this court and others contrary to appellant’s argument here. See Caggiano v. State, 505 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Carroll v. State, 459 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
While we have on several occasions held that the trial judge may not delegate his duty to determine the amount of restitution that is proper to impose upon a convicted defendant pursuant to section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1985) (see McClure v. State, 371 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)), that is not what happened in this case. Appellant complains not that the trial court improperly delegated its duty, but that the trial court improperly used information contained in the presentence investigation report to determine the amount of restitution.
Although appellant relies on Mansell v. State, 498 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), Mansell is clearly distinguishable. Unlike the appellant in Mansell, appellant here makes no effort to demonstrate as improper the restitution amounts that the trial court found were required by the presen-tence investigation report. Appellant only challenges the method used to make the determination. Section 775.089 does not specify the type or quantum of evidence needed to determine restitution. We conclude that hearsay evidence is properly used to determine the amount of restitution except where a defendant raises a bona fide challenge at the restitution hearing to the amount determined by the trial judge to be appropriate.
Affirmed.
SCHEB and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 581 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…00 in restitution. While hearsay evidence may be used to determine the amount of restitution if there is no proper objection to that evidence, the appellant in this case made a proper objection, and it should have been sustained. Flanagan v. State, 536 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Mansell v. State, 498 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). See also Fleming v. State, 547 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The gun shop owner and his employee might have been qualified to give an opinion as to the value of the guns, and…
-
Reynolds v. State, 598 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Under certain circumstances, a trial court may rely on the hearsay evidence of recommended restitution amounts from a PSI to make its determination. See Thomas v. State, 581 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1991); Flanagan v. State, 536 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1988). In the proceedings below, however, counsel for appellant timely requested, but never received, a restitution hearing. Under those circumstances, the trial court erred in basing the restitution order in part on hearsay evidence.…
-
Fleming v. State, 547 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…at the sentencing hearing the defendant did not raise a bona fide objection to the presentence investigation report and the value of the guns recited therein, hearsay evidence was sufficient to determine the amount of restitution. Flanagan v. State, 536 So. 2d 275 (Fla.1988). Therefore, the motion for rehearing is granted. We reverse and remand with directions to modify the restitution order to require payment of restitution in the amount of $387.50, the value of the unrecovered guns that were stolen on July…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McCLURE v. State, 371 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Carroll v. State, 459 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Mansell v. State, 498 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- In the Interest of J.J.C., 498 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Caggiano v. State, 505 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)