V.B., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
V.B., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
75 So. 3d 363
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2011)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Appellant correctly asserts, and the state properly concedes, the trial court erred in ordering restitution based upon hearsay evidence that was improperly ad*364mitted at the restitution hearing over appellant’s objection. Butler v. State, 970 So.2d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Forlano v. State, 964 So.2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); I.M. v. State, 958 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Herrington v. State, 828 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s restitution determination and remand for a new restitution hearing. Forlano, 964 So.2d at 246; Herrington, 823 So.2d at 286-87.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WETHERELL, MARSTILLER, and SWANSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nelson v. State, 95 So. 3d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ctly asserts, and the state properly concedes, the trial court erred in ordering restitution based on speculation, non-admitted business records, and hearsay evidence admitted at the restitution hearing over appellant’s objection. See V.B. v. State, 75 So. 3d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Dreyer v. State, 46 So. 3d 613, 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Ritch v. State, 14 So. 3d 1104, 1107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Butler v. State, 970 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Forlano v. State, 964 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); I.M. v.…
Authorities Cited
- I.M. v. State, 958 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Butler v. State, 970 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Forlano v. State, 964 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Ramirez v. State, 964 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)