TOMMY LEE CARTER, JR., EUGENE MELVIN CARTER, BENNIE LEE WALKER, AND MICHAEL JEROD CARTER, APPELLANTS,
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 affirmed the revocation of appellants' probations and most probation conditions, but reversed the restitution condition requiring payment for a shooting victim's death because appellants were acquitted of the third degree murder charge.
A probation condition requiring restitution for a victim's death must be reversed when the probationer was acquitted of the murder charge.
[1] A probation condition requiring restitution for damages must have a nexus to the crime of conviction, and cannot be imposed for a crime of which the probationer was acqui…
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 intelligenceFour appellants had their probations revoked and were subject to various probation conditions, including one requiring restitution for a shooting vict…
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 Nexus Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
The revocation of appellants’ probations are affirmed. The conditions of probation to which no contemporaneous objections were raised at the original sentencing are also affirmed.1 However, the condition requiring appellants to pay restitution for the shooting victim’s death, to which a contemporaneous objection was raised, is reversed in light of the fact that appellants were acquitted on the third degree murder charge.2
MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur. . See this court’s opinion in Carter v. State, 640 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
. See DeLong v. State, 638 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Jackson v. State, 634 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Burke v. State, 596 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Barkley v. State, 585 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Johnson v. State, 547 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Simmons v. State, 484 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Bass v. State, 462 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). But see Durand v. State, 590 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (“there was a sufficient nexus between the crime for which the appellants were convicted and the damages to the victim”); Springs v. State, 553 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ("although the victim’s injuries could have been sustained during the attempted murder, her wounds were inflicted during the course of the robbery”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henninger v. State, 667 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…restitution ordered here relates solely to damages arising out of an injury and death of which Henninger was charged and acquitted by the jury, this restitution is precluded by the specific causation requirement in section 775.089. Carter v. State, 640 So. 2d 1237, 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (condition requiring defendants to pay restitution for shooting victim’s death reversed where defendants were acquitted on the third degree murder charge); Barkley v. State, 585 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“[A] def…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Barkley v. State, 585 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Maritza Barroso v. State, 547 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Johnson v. State, 547 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Ford v. State, 484 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Bass v. State, 462 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Springs v. State, 553 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Burke v. State, 596 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- DeLONG v. State, 638 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Durand v. State, 590 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Jackson v. State, 634 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)