DANIEL NELSON HILL, 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 struck a civil restitution lien for noncompliance with statutory requirements and remanded cost/fine assessments for clarification, while affirming the judgment in all other respects.
A civil restitution lien is invalid under section 960.292(B) when it fails to identify the person or entity in whose favor it is imposed, and cost assessments must be remanded when the trial court fails to cite proper statutory authority.
[1] A civil restitution lien imposed under section 960.292(B), Florida Statutes, is invalid if it does not identify the person or entity in whose favor the lien is imposed.
[2] Trial court cost assessments must be remanded when the court fails to cite statutory authority for the assessment and characterizes costs inconsistently between oral pron…
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 intelligenceDaniel Nelson Hill was sentenced and the trial court imposed a civil restitution lien and assessed costs/fines totaling $580, with an orally imposed $…
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 Civil Restitution Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In accordance with Lund v. State, 658 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), we strike the civil restitution lien order entered in this case, based on its noncompliance with the requirements of section 960.292(B), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). As was the case in Lund, the lien at issue here is invalid in that it does not identify the person or entity in whose favor it is imposed. In view of this disposition, we decline to reach the other issues presented by appellant regarding the interpretation of the statute and its constitutionality, and the absence of the defendant at the time the lien was imposed.
Appellant further argues that the trial court erred in imposing costs without reference to statutory authority, and notes that an orally imposed cost of $500 is characterized in the written probation order as a fine. The state acknowledges and we agree that this issue should be remanded to the trial court for clarification as to the nature of each assessment and the statutory authority underlying it. We therefore strike the assessment of costs/fines totaling $580, without prejudice to the reimposition of these costs upon compliance with the proper procedures. See Bryant v. State, 661 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla.2d DCA 1995); Bradshaw v. State, 638 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). In all other respects, the judgment and sentence of the trial court is affirmed.
JOANOS, MICKLE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cross v. State, 989 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ricken and this issue is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of conforming the written order to the oral pronouncement and for clarification regarding the nature of the assessment and the statutory authority underlying it. See Hill v. State, 664 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Johnson v. State, 664 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). [*2] Further, the trial court announced that Cross would have to pay a five percent surcharge under section 316.193, Florida Statutes (2003). The assessment of this surcharg…
Authorities Cited
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Torey Bradshaw and Alford R. Martin v. State, 638 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Bryant v. State, 661 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Bonner v. State, 658 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)