SEAN PATRICK TATRO, 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.
Appellate court affirmed restitution to burglary victims where defendant failed to object at sentencing, but struck prosecution and appellate costs that lacked evidentiary support.
Restitution to burglary victims is proper when the trial court advises the defendant of the amounts and defense counsel does not object, even absent explicit victim loss evidence.
[1] Restitution to crime victims may be imposed without explicit victim loss evidence when the defendant receives notice of amounts and fails to object at sentencing.
[2] Prosecution costs and appellate costs cannot be imposed without evidentiary support in the presentence investigation or a stipulation covering such costs.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSean Tatro was sentenced to pay restitution to five burglary victims. At sentencing, the court advised Tatro of the restitution amounts and his counse…
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 Appellate Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sean Tatro appeals from an order requiring him to pay restitution to five separate burglary victims and argues that the state failed to introduce evidence of the amount of victim loss at the sentencing hearing. The record indicates that during sentencing the court advised the defendant of the amounts which it was going to impose for the five victims and Tatro’s counsel voiced no objection, in fact, counsel stated that the presentence investigation which listed the amounts of the victims’ losses was correct. Under these circumstances we find no error in the imposition of restitution costs.
Tatro also argues that the trial court erred in imposing prosecution costs and appellate costs. The state concedes the error in the imposition of the costs of prosecution since the presentence investigation did not specify those amounts and the stipulation did not cover those costs. Thus, the $200 prosecution costs are stricken. Likewise, we find that the appellate costs were erroneously imposed. Anderson v. State, 632 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We find no merit in Tatro’s other argument.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of restitution but strike the prosecution costs and anticipatory appellate costs.
GUNTHER, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.