L.S., 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.
The court held that imposing a restitution amount without a formal hearing on the matter, after the child was found delinquent, constitutes a denial of due process.
A child was found delinquent for vandalizing a car, and the trial court ordered restitution of $6,000. The owner testified to the damage amount, but n…
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 Delinquency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, J.
The child was charged with delinquency for vandalizing a car. At the final hearing on the petition, the State produced witnesses establishing that the child threw rocks repeatedly at an automobile and caused significant damage to its exterior. The owner of the vehicle testified that the amount of the damage was $6,000. After closing argument on the delinquency petition, the trial judge proceeded to announce his decision on the merits, explaining that the evidence was sufficient to show the vandalism. We affirm that decision without further discussion.
In imposing the penalty the trial judge also announced that the child was responsible for restitution in the amount testified by the owner. The judge found that the child currently had no ability to pay anything toward restitution but ruled that his liability for the $6,000 would continue into his majority. He appeals, arguing that it was a denial of due process not to afford him a formal hearing on the amount of restitution. We agree.
While the testimony of the owner was sufficient to prove guilt, it was not by itself sufficient to fix the amount of restitution at that point. Nothing in the record up to that point placed the child on notice that the amount of restitution would be determined solely on the basis of the evidence adduced at the hearing of the charge of delinquency. Without such notice, the child had no way of knowing that he would have to offer evidence as to the amount of any potential restitution at the hearing to determine whether he was even guilty of the charge. Imposition of a fixed amount of restitution without notice or hearing is error. A.B. v. State, 910 So. 2d 415, 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Filmore v. State, 656 So. 2d 535, 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
Adjudication of delinquency affirmed; restitution order reversed.
WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carter v. State, 23 So. 3d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…tions 775.089(6) and (7) require a hearing!, before restitution is imposed,] to determine both the defendant’s ability to pay and the amount owed.” Exilorme v. State, 857 So. 2d 339, 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). This case is controlled by L.S. v. State, 975 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). In the final hearing on a delinquency petition in that case, the owner of the vehicle testified as to the dollar amount of the damage done to his car by the child. Id. at 555. After finding the child guilty of delinquency, the t…
-
Barone v. State, 222 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…nd District Court of Appeal reversed the restitution order and remanded for a restitution hearing. Id. (citing Reynolds v. State, 598 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)). Due process requires a formal hearing on the amount of restitution. L.S. v. State, 975 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), We reverse the restitution order and remand with, instructions for the trial court to conduct a restitution hearing consistent with section 775,089(6)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes (2016). AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, R…
-
Curtis v. State, 187 So. 3d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…lity to pay. § 775.089(6)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (2014). Here, the trial court failed to consider either because it failed to conduct a restitution hearing. “Imposition of a fixed amount of restitution without notice or hearing is error.” L.S. v. State, 975 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citations omitted). We therefore reverse the restitution part of the sentence and remand the case to the trial court for a restitution hearing. As to the $27,000 civil lien, the trial court properly entered it. Section 960…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Filmore v. State, 656 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- A.B. v. State, 910 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)