TERRY FAULKNER, 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.
The court held that a restitution order entered after sentencing without a hearing or opportunity for objection is improper.
Following convictions for purchase and possession of cocaine, the defendant was sentenced. A week later, a different judge entered a restitution order…
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 Opportunity To Object cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Terry Faulkner has appealed from an order imposing restitution after his convictions of purchase and possession of cocaine. We reverse and remand with directions to strike the restitution order. Following the foregoing convictions, Faulker was sentenced as an habitual offender to two concurrent 3½ year terms of incarceration. The court did not mention restitution at sentencing, nor hold a separate hearing. One week after sentencing, a different judge entered a written restitution order requiring $230.00 in' restitution to the police department narcotics division.
Faulkner argues that the trial court erred in ordering restitution without a hearing, citing Denmark v. State, 588 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) and Harris v. State, 593 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In Denmark, as here, the trial court ordered restitution without a hearing, either separate or during sentencing. The appellate court reversed, in that the trial court had no opportunity to consider Denmark’s resources before imposing restitution. Although the Harris trial court imposed restitution at sentencing, it set the amount three days later in a separate order. The court reversed, in that, because the trial judge had not announced the amount or manner of payment at sentencing, "appellant was not afforded an opportunity to object, in any real sense.” Harris at 1171.
The state concedes that, under the foregoing authorities, the restitution order herein was improperly entered. Based on this concession of error, the restitution order imposed herein is reversed, and the case remanded with directions to strike that order. JOANOS, C.J., and ERVIN and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2011)…ctim as well as the defendant’s ability to pay.... Subsections 775.089(6) and (7) require a hearing to determine both the defendant’s ability to pay and the amount owed.” (citing Allen v. State, 718 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Faulkner v. State, 620 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Burch v. State, 617 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Denmark v. State, 588 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991))). . Sections 985.437 and 985.0301, Florida Statutes (2011), pertain to restitution ordered in the juvenile context. . Se…
-
Exilorme v. State, 857 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…tution is imposed, to determine the amount owed to the victim as well as the defendant’s ability to pay. It is reversible error to impose restitution without notice or a hearing. Allen v. State, 718 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Faulkner v. State, 620 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Burch v. State, 617 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The State argues that State v. Sanderson, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1993), al6lowed the trial court to forego the hearing under the instant facts. The issue in Sanderson was whether…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & DGP Invs., Inc., 588 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Clemond Edward Harris v. State, 593 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)