BOBBY CASTO, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed restitution order for DUI offense but vacated the delegation of payment schedule determination to probation officer, holding that only courts may establish restitution payment schedules.
A trial court may impose restitution for a DUI offense but must itself establish the payment schedule rather than delegating that authority to a probation officer.
[1] A trial court must personally establish the restitution payment schedule and may not delegate this authority to a probation officer, even though the probation officer may…
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“Only a court, not a probation officer, may establish a pay schedule.”
Court's holding regarding delegation of payment schedule authority
Casto pleaded nolo contendere to driving under the influence resulting in serious bodily injury. The trial court ordered restitution of $39,418.50 as …
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 Judicial Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Bobby Casto entered a plea of nolo con-tendere to a charge of driving under the influence resulting in serious bodily injury, and the trial court ordered restitution in the amount of $39,418.50 as a condition of probation. Casto contended at the restitution hearing that his ability to pay was hampered by his ninth grade education, his unemployment, and injuries he received both in the accident and on a former job as a block mason. During the hearing, the court stated, “The amount which [Casto] would be required to pay will be as determined by his probation officer, based upon his income, because he’s got to go to work.”
We agree with the trial court’s fulfillment of the obligation to impose restitution pursuant to sections 775.089 and 948.-03(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1991), and affirm the order of restitution. We regret that we must vacate that portion of the condition of probation that allows the probation officer to determine the amount Casto is required to pay. Only a court, not a probation officer, may establish a pay schedule. Boss v. State, 613 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th. DCA 1993). By the time this matter is reheard, the probation officer may have enough information about Casto’s income to suggest a schedule for repayment which may be adopted by the trial court. AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; REMANDED.
GOSHORN, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Armstrong v. State, 620 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…m” must be struck from the trial court’s order to avoid any suggestion that the probation officer may require appellant to make higher monthly payments. Appellant did not agree to delegate this authority to his probation officer. See Casto v. State, 615 So. 2d 792 (Fla.5th DCA 1993); Ashe v. State, 582 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1st DCA 1991); Williams v. State, 507 So. 2d 1171 (Fla.2d DCA 1987). Additionally, the trial court, in condition 16 of its probation order, required appellant to maintain full-time and part-tim…
-
Hillman v. State, 636 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…ich requires restitution to be payable at a rate determined by his probation officer. We reverse because this court has held that it is improper for anyone other than a judge to set a payment schedule for amounts owed in restitution. Casto v. State, 615 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Boss v. State, 613 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court to set a payout rate on the restitution. REVERSED AND REMANDED. DIAMANTIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Section 810…
-
Johnson v. State, 617 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. Ms. Johnson appeals an order of restitution. We affirm the written order, but disapprove the trial court’s oral delegation to the probation officer of the responsibility for determining a payment schedule. Casto v. State, 615 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Smith v. State, 589 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). This court has acknowledged conflict with Smith in State v. Sanderson, 615 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); however, our conflict with Smith was based on other grounds. Affirme…
Authorities Cited
- Boss v. State, 613 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)