DONALD W. STOKES, 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.
Appellant Stokes appealed the imposition of restitution as a probation condition. The court agreed that restitution was improper because Stokes received no prior notice and no opportunity to be heard on the amount of damages. The court struck the restitution provision and remanded for a proper hearing.
The court held that the imposition of restitution without prior notice and without an opportunity to be heard was improper. The appellant must be afforded a hearing to establish the relationship between the offense and the victim's damages and to determine the amount of restitution owed.
“Appellant was given no notice that a restitution condition would be imposed. Rather, the condition was proposed for the first time at appellant's sentencing hearing.”
Establishes the procedural defect that made the restitution order improper
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStokes was convicted and sentenced to probation with a restitution condition. The restitution condition was proposed for the first time at the sentenc…
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 Sentencing Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of probation. Appellant contends that the trial court’s imposition of restitution as a condition of probation was improper because he was not given prior notice of the proposed restitution order and was not accorded the opportunity to be heard as to the amount of damage caused by his criminal conduct. We agree.
Appellant was given no notice that a restitution condition would be imposed. Rather, the condition was proposed for the first time at appellant’s sentencing hearing. Under these circumstances the order requiring restitution was improper. Fresneda v. State, 347 So. 2d 1021 (Fla.1977); Reeves v. State, 372 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Further, appellant must be afforded a hearing to establish that the offense with which he was charged has a relationship to the damage to the victim and to establish the amount of damages or loss caused by his offense. § 948.03(l)(g), Fla.Stat. (1977); Fresneda v. State, supra.
We have examined the other points urged by appellant and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, but we strike the restitution provision from the probation order and remand for a hearing on the question of restitution.
GRIMES, C. J., and BOARDMAN and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goodson v. State, 400 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…restitution will not be reversed merely because the trial court did not furnish advance notice that restitution may be imposed as a condition of probation. To the extent that our decision may be inconsistent with statements made in Stokes v. State, 377 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Kroenke v. State, 366 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); DiOrio v. State, 359 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Latti v. State, 364 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), we recede from such statements. Accordingly, we affirm the order placing t…
Authorities Cited
- Fresneda v. State, 347 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1977)
- Reeves v. State, 372 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)