TIMMIE RAY BARRON, 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.
Appellant's conviction for first-degree felony murder was affirmed, but the restitution portion of his sentence for armed burglary was reversed because the trial court improperly delegated the determination of restitution amount to the Department of Corrections rather than making that determination itself.
A trial court cannot delegate to the Department of Corrections the responsibility for determining the amount of restitution, even if it reserves the right to hear disputes about the amount.
[1] A trial court must itself determine the amount of restitution and cannot delegate this determination to the Department of Corrections or other nonjudicial officer, even i…
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 intelligenceBarron was convicted of first-degree felony murder and armed burglary of a dwelling. At sentencing, the trial court ordered restitution as a special c…
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 Restitution Amount Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
The appellant challenges his conviction 'for first degree felony murder and the restitution portion of his sentence for armed burglary of a dwelling. We find no merit in the appeal as to the conviction for first degree felony murder and affirm. We reverse the restitution portion of the sentence for armed burglary of a dwelling.
At sentencing, the trial court ordered that the appellant pay restitution as a special condition of his probation. The trial court stated:
The Court is going to require the Department of Corrections to make a determination as to the amount of the restitution. Once the amount of restitution has been determined and Mr. Barron has a dispute with the amount of the restitution, he can ask the Court for a restitution hearing and the Court will revisit the amount of the restitution and give Mr. Barron a chance to dispute the amount of the restitution.
The appellant argues that only the trial court may determine the amount of restitution, and it cannot delegate this responsibility to the Department of Corrections or any other nonjudicial officer. The state argues that the trial court did not improperly delegate its responsibility because the trial court reserved for itself the final determination of the amount of restitution and only the preliminary responsibility for determining the amount of restitution was delegated to the Department of Corrections. We have recently decided this issue contrary to the state’s position. Snyder v. State, 597 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Based on Snyder, we remand to the trial court to establish the amount of restitution.
RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rico Wise v. State, 614 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…rder of restitution. A review of the record reveals no error in sentencing. However, the trial court improperly delegated to the Florida Department of Corrections its responsibility to determine the amount of restitution to be paid. Barron v. State, 598 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Bostic v. State, 504 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We reverse the order of restitution and remand to the trial court to determine an appropriate amount of restitution. HALL, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Snyder v. State, 597 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)