DINO HOWARD, 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.
Dino Howard was convicted of third-degree murder and attempted armed kidnapping. He appealed arguing that reversal was required under Coney v. State because the record did not reflect his presence at side-bar conferences where jury venire challenges were exercised. The court affirmed the convictions but reversed the restitution order and certified a question regarding Coney's application to pipeline cases.
Coney does not require a new trial in this pipeline case because Coney itself excluded its application to cases pending at the time of its decision. The restitution order is reversed because the sentencing court failed to announce the restitution requirement at sentencing and failed to establish a factual basis for the amount ordered.
[1] The rule announced in Coney v. …
[2] A restitution order must be announced at sentencing and supported by a factual basis or stipulation in the record.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Coney does not require a new trial here because the court in Coney excluded its application to cases, such as the instant case, which were "in the pipeline" at the time Coney was decided.”
Establishes that Coney's requirements do not apply retroactively to pipeline cases pending when Coney was decided
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDino Howard was convicted of third-degree murder and attempted armed kidnapping and sentenced to prison with an order to pay restitution. The sentenci…
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 Pipeline Cases cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Dino Howard appeals his conviction and sentences for third degree murder and attempted armed kidnapping, arguing among other things that reversal is required under Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.1995), because the record does not reflect that Howard was present at side-bar conferences at which challenges to the jury venire were exercised. We affirm all issues on appeal, except for the ordered restitution, and certify a question of great public importance relating to the application of Coney to “pipeline” cases. We reverse the order of restitution and remand for further proceedings and for the entry of a corrected judgment.
For reasons that are fully spelled out in this court’s opinion in Lett v. State, 668 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), Corny does not require a new trial here because the court in Coney excluded its application to cases, such as the instant case, which were “in the pipeline” at the time Coney was decided. As in Lett, we also certify the following question:
DOES THE DECISION IN CONEY APPLY TO “PIPELINE CASES,” THAT IS, THOSE OF SIMILARLY SITUATED DEFENDANTS WHOSE CASES WERE PENDING ON DIRECT REVIEW OR NOT YET FINAL DURING THE TIME CONEY WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE OPINION? In addition to imposing a prison term, the written sentence directs that Howard pay restitution.
However, the sentencing court did not announce at the time of sentencing that appellant would be required to pay restitution. Further, no factual basis has been established in the record for the amount of restitution ordered and no stipulation appears in the record as to the amount, contrary to the suggestion by the lower court in its written order. The state concedes, and we agree, that the order of restitution must be reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Dubois v. State, 650 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
While on remand, the lower court is instructed to enter a corrected judgment deleting the reference to section “787.01'’, a non-existent statute, and adding the correct statutory reference. Further, while on remand, appellant is to be specifically advised of the amount of public defender fees sought to be assessed and of his statutory right to challenge that amount. Bull v. State, 548 So. 2d 1103 (Fla.1989).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
BOOTH, WOLF AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia v. State, 679 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…(Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Gainer v. State, 671 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Berwick v. State, 671 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Bell v. State, 671 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Branch v. State, 671 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Howard v. State, 670 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Lee v. State, 670 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).…
-
Dino Howard v. State, 684 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1996)…(1995) ] APPLY TO “PIPELINE CASES,” THAT IS, THOSE OF SIMILARLY SITUATED DEFENDANTS WHOSE CASES WERE PENDING ON DIRECT REVIEW OR NOT YET FINAL DURING THE TIME CONEY WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE OPINION? Howard v. State, 670 So. 2d 1149, 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answered this question in Boyett v. State, No. 81,971, — So. 2d-[1996 WL 693616] (Fla. Dec. 5,1996). There we wrote: In Coney, we expressly held that “our ruling to…
Authorities Cited
- Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1995)
- Bull v. State, 548 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1989)
- Alfredco Lett v. State, 668 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Dubois v. State, 650 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)