HAROLD HODAS, 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.
Restitution order reversed because defendant was denied counsel at the restitution hearing, a critical stage of sentencing requiring Sixth Amendment protection.
A defendant has a right to counsel at a restitution hearing, which is a critical stage of sentencing, and the trial court must affirmatively offer counsel or the restitution order must be reversed.
[1] Restitution is a critical stage of sentencing at which a defendant is entitled to the assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
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“Restitution is a part of sentencing, D.T. v. State, 477 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), and the assistance of counsel is required at this critical stage of the criminal proceedings.”
Court explaining the legal basis for requiring counsel at restitution hearings.
Hodas was convicted of grand theft of a jewelry store and ordered to pay restitution. A restitution hearing was scheduled to determine the amount, but…
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 Critical Stage Of Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Harold Hodas, the appellant, was convicted of grand theft of a jewelry store. The trial court ordered Hodas to pay restitution in an amount to be determined. Because Hodas disputed the amounts which the jewelry store contended had been stolen, a restitution hearing was scheduled to take place. When the case was initially called for hearing an assistant public defender, who was standing in for the counsel who had represented Hodas throughout all earlier proceedings, indicated that he would need a few minutes to look over the file. The case was later recalled, but apparently took place without the presence of Hodas’ counsel. Restitution is a part of sentencing, D.T. v. State, 477 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), and the assistance of counsel is required at this critical stage of the criminal proceedings. Bowman v. State, 550 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); and Brown v. State, 479 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). In any event, the record fails to affirmatively show that the trial court offered Hodas assistance of counsel. We therefore reverse the order of restitution and remand for a new hearing wherein Hodas will be afforded counsel. We find no merit to the other points which the appellant raises on appeal.
Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.
LETTS, J., ALDERMAN, JAMES E., Senior Justice, and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Papageorge v. State, 710 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…d notice, Appellant had not been provided any notice of the hearing date. She stated that her attempt at notifying Appellant, made the day before the hearing, was unsuccessful. Since restitution is an integral part of sentencing, see Hodas v. State, 603 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), Appellant had a constitutional right to be present at the hearing. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.180(a)(9); Summerall, 588 So. 2d at 32. Although his counsel had received proper notice, we do not believe that the trial court could conduct…
-
Kepner v. State, 911 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…he offer of counsel at sentencing, a critical stage in the proceedings. “Even if a defendant does not request appointment of counsel, this omission is not considered a knowing waiver of the right to counsel.” Id. at 1247-48; see also Hodas v. State, 603 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Appellee concedes, and we agree, that the court’s failure to renew the offer of counsel prior to sentencing was error requiring reversal and resentencing. Affirmed in part; Reversed in part, and Remanded for Resentencing. STON…
-
E.C.M. v. State, 835 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…uted a written waiver of counsel, which read “I don’t want a lawyer for this hearing.” (Emphasis added.) At the February 20, 2001, restitution hearing the trial court did not advise E.C.M. of his right to counsel. This was error. See Hodas v. State, 603 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Additionally, E.C.M. did not intentionally relinquish or abandon his known right to counsel at the restitution hearing. The record reflects that when the trial court asked E.C.M. if he was represented by counsel, the clerk answ…
Authorities Cited
- Bowman v. State, 550 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- In the Interest of D.T., 477 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Brown v. State, 479 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)