BERNARD BRADLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 a defendant who agrees to pay restitution as a condition of probation is estopped from later challenging the restitution order based on causation.
The defendant was charged with leaving the scene of an accident, pled nolo contendere, and was placed on probation with restitution as a condition. Th…
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 Notice And Hearing Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Bernard Bradley, appeals from an order requiring him to pay restitution. We affirm.
The defendant was charged by information with leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injury. The defendant initially pled not guilty, but changed his plea to nolo contendere. The trial court withheld adjudication and placed the defendant on probation for one year. In open court, the defendant agreed to pay restitution as a condition of probation; the amount was to be determined at a later date.
At the restitution hearing, defense counsel objected to the imposition of restitution, arguing that the state had failed to show any causation between the defendant’s act of leaving the scene of the accident and the victim’s injuries. The court entered a civil order of restitution in the amount of $31,-001.90.
As part of the defendant’s plea, he agreed to pay restitution to the victim. Since the plea agreement contemplated the restitution ordered, the defendant is es-topped from raising the alleged illegality of the condition. See Pollock v. Bryson, 450 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Moreover, the record indicates that the trial court complied with the requirements of Fresneda v. State, 347 So. 2d 1021 (Fla.1977) and afforded the defendant the required notice of the proposed restitution order and the required hearing as to the amount of restitution. See also Kirkland v. State, 575 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Kroenke v. State, 366 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 374 So. 2d 99 (Fla.1979).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of restitution.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Armstrong v. State, 620 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…n to the victim in the amount imposed by the trial court in order to avoid being sentenced as an habitual felony offender. Thus, appellant is es-topped from raising the alleged illegality of the restitution condition on appeal. See Bradley v. State, 602 So. 2d 980 (Fla.3d DCA 1992) (affirming condition of restitution where defendant agreed to pay restitution to accident victim as part of defendant’s plea of nolo contendere to charge of leaving scene of accident); Pollock v. Bryson, 450 So. 2d 1183 (Fla.2d DCA…
-
Verdejo v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Fresneda v. State, 347 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1977)
- DeWITT v. Rollin W. Zimmerman, 366 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Fisher v. Fisher, 450 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Pollock v. Honorable Fred L. Bryson, 450 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Kirkland v. State, 575 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)