DANIEL ALLEN STRICKLAND, 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.
Strickland appeals a restitution order requiring him to pay $10,000 to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund following his robbery conviction. The appellate court reversed the $10,000 restitution award and remanded for a proper hearing, holding that when a defendant requests a hearing on restitution, the trial court must hold one and the state must present evidence beyond mere assertion, but affirmed the $1,646 restitution to the victim.
The trial court was required to hold a restitution hearing on the $10,000 Fund restitution after the defendant requested one. The state's bare assertion of the amount, without presentation of evidence in the record, does not satisfy its burden. The $1,646 restitution to the victim was properly awarded because the defendant did not object to it.
[1] A dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution must be resolved by the court by a preponderance of the evidence.
[2] A defendant is entitled to a restitution hearing when they object to restitution and request proof of the amount from the State.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“When a defendant objects to restitution and requests proof by the State of the restitution amount, he is entitled to separate hearing.”
Establishes the defendant's right to a restitution hearing when challenging the amount
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStrickland was convicted of robbery. At sentencing, the court awarded $11,646 in total restitution: $10,000 to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund (whi…
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 Crimes Compensation Trust Fund cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Chief Judge.
Daniel Strickland appeals from a judgment, sentence, and probation order which requires a restitution payment of $10,000 to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund (the Fund). We reverse the $10,000 award and remand for a restitution hearing; otherwise, we affirm Strickland’s judgment and sentence.
As a result of Strickland’s robbery conviction, the court awarded a total of $11,-646 in restitution. At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor stated that the victim had over $11,000 in medical bills and that the Fund had paid $10,000 of those expenses. The prosecutor explained that the victim incurred a loss of $1,646 which included the money stolen from her purse, replacement of her broken glasses, and income she lost from missing work. The court awarded $10,000 to the Fund and $1,646 directly to the victim. Defense counsel requested a restitution hearing as to the $10,000. The prosecutor volunteered the document reflecting the amount the Fund had paid, and the trial court then stated it would not require a hearing.
The legislature has provided for assistance to crime victims, and in doing so, created the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund. See § 960.21, Fla. Stat. (1997). Section 960.17, Florida Statutes (1997), provides that any payment of benefits to a victim under chapter 960 “shall create an obligation of restitution in accordance with s. 775.089.” In turn, section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), provides, “Payment of an award by the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund shall create an order of restitution to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund, unless specifically waived in accordance with subparagraph (b)l.” However, section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1997), states, “Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence.” Thus, .section 775.089(7) contemplates an evidentiary hearing when there is a dispute as to restitution.
“When a defendant objects to restitution and requests proof by the State of the restitution amount, he is entitled to separate hearing.” Noonan v. State, 709 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). At the sentencing hearing, Strickland requested a hearing on the $10,000 restitution amount. The assistant state attorney referred to a document reflecting the amount of money that the Fund had paid. That document, however, is not in our record. In fact, nothing in the record, except the prosecutor’s assertion at the hearing, reflects a payment by the Fund. Therefore, we reverse the restitution order and remand for a restitution hearing on the $10,000 award. We note that Strickland did not object to the $1,646 restitution award payable directly to the victim. Therefore, he has not preserved that issue for review, and we affirm with respect to the victim’s restitution award.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
ALTENBERND and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.