HENRY LEE BRYANT, JR., 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 the defendant was denied due process because he was not notified of the restitution hearing.
The Department of Corrections requested a probation modification to pay for damaged monitoring equipment. A hearing was held without the defendant pre…
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 Probation Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
Henry Lee Bryant, Jr., appeals from the order modifying his probation and entering a $1200 restitution lien. He argues that he was denied due process because he was not notified of the restitution hearing. We agree and reverse.
The Department of Corrections filed a request to modify Bryant’s probation to require him to pay for damaged monitoring equipment. A hearing was held in haste without Bryant’s presence because the State recognized that Bryant’s term of probation was about to expire and jurisdiction over him would be lost. The defense objected to proceeding with the hearing in Bryant’s absence. The defense also argued that the State had failed to present any evidence of the cost of the monitoring device. Over the defense’s objections, the trial court modified Bryant’s probation and imposed a $1200 lien.
“It is well settled that a defendant has the constitutional right to be present at a restitution hearing.” C.C.N. v. State, 1 So.3d 1151, 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). The State concedes that there was no evidence that Bryant had notice of the hearing or that he voluntarily waived his presence. See M.W.G. v. State, 945 So.2d 597, 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“The State has the burden of proving that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to be present” at a restitution hearing). The State also acknowledges that no evidence was presented to establish the amount of the lien. See Noonan v. State, 709 So.2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (reversing an order of restitution where no evidence was offered as to the amount of restitution other than the State’s representation of the amount claimed).
Accordingly, we vacate the order modifying Bryant’s probation and imposing the lien.
Reversed.
ALTENBERND and YILLANTI, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holmes v. State, 117 So. 3d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…e also Windh v. State, 113 So. 3d 150, 151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that pursuant to the Sixth Amendment, a criminal defendant has a right to be present at a restitution hearing as it is a critical stage of criminal proceedings); Bryant v. State, 99 So. 3d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding that imposing restitution as a lien constituted reversible error where there was no evidence that defendant, who was not present at the restitution hearing, had received notice of the hearing or voluntarily waived his pre…
Authorities Cited
- M.W.G. v. State, 945 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- C.C.N. v. State, 1 So. 3d 1151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Noonan v. State, 709 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)