JOSEPH WASHINGTON HARRIS, 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.
Joseph Washington Harris was convicted of armed robbery and attempted armed robbery. On appeal, Harris challenged the trial court's restitution order and certain court costs assessments. The court found merit in his arguments regarding restitution procedures and unauthorized costs.
The court held that Harris was entitled to a restitution hearing before restitution amounts could be finalized, unless he waived such hearing by agreeing to the amounts. The court could not determine from the record whether Harris waived the hearing. The court costs assessed pursuant to sections 943.25(4) and 943.25(8) were unauthorized and must be struck.
[1] A defendant is entitled to a restitution hearing unless the record affirmatively shows a waiver of that right.
[2] A trial court must determine on the record whether a defendant agreed to restitution amounts to obviate the need for a hearing.
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“While we agree that the appellant is entitled to a restitution hearing, we cannot determine from the record whether he waived the hearing by agreeing to the amount of restitution.”
Establishes the court's position that Harris is entitled to a restitution hearing but may waive it by agreement, and the record does not clearly show whether such waiver occurred.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris was convicted of two counts of armed robbery and one count of attempted armed robbery under Florida Statutes section 812.13(1989). At sentencin…
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 Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
The appellant, Joseph Washington Harris, was convicted of two counts of armed robbery and one count of attempted armed robbery, in violation of section 812.13, Florida Statutes (1989). He raises several issues on appeal; however, we find merit only in his contentions as to restitution and costs. The appellant primarily contends that the trial court erred in setting amounts for restitution without providing him with a restitution hearing. While we agree that the appellant is entitled to a restitution hearing, we cannot determine from the record whether he waived the hearing by agreeing to the amount of restitution. We, therefore, remand, for further proceedings.
The record reflects that at the appellant’s sentencing hearing, the trial court stated:
There being apparent conflict as to how much restitution might be due to whom, we will schedule this for a separate hearing in respect to the amounts of restitution, with the specific provision that if [the defendant] is presented with what purports to be accurate amounts and agrees to them, that would obviate the need for such hearing. It will become part of the order at that time.
The trial court entered an order five days later setting forth the amount of restitution. Since we have no record of a separate restitution hearing or any reflection in the record that the appellant agreed to the restitution amounts ordered, we remand this case to the trial court. Upon remand, the trial court shall determine on the record whether the appellant and the state agreed to the amount of restitution. If it is determined that there was no such agreement, a restitution hearing shall be conducted forthwith and the restitution order corrected to reflect the proper amounts.
The appellant also complains that he was assessed certain court costs which were unauthorized by statute. We agree and hereby strike the costs imposed pursuant to sections 943.25(4) and 943.25(8), Florida Statutes (1989). Those citations are misprinted on the final judgment form, as those provisions do not authorize the imposition of court costs. See Siplin v. State, 584 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
Accordingly, the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The appellant’s judgment and sentence are otherwise affirmed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.