A.P. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

A.P. v. State

558 So. 2d 519, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1826, 1990 WL 31528

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 22, 1990

DocketNo. 88-2270

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 558 So. 2d 519 (A.P. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A.P. v. State, 558 So. 2d 519, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1826, 1990 WL 31528 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

GOSHORN, Judge.

A.P., a child, appeals the order of commitment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services which provided in part that “Restitution is to be made.” A.P. asserts that the court erred by imposing restitution without notice and failing to determine the amount to be repaid. Because we find both arguments without merit, we affirm the commitment order.

A.P.’s first point lacks merit because it is clear from the disposition transcript that A.P. agreed to pay restitution. Regarding A.P.’s second point, we construe the court’s order as a reservation of jurisdiction to set the amount of restitution in the event the amount is not otherwise agreed to. The instant case is distinguishable from M.A.R. v. State, 433 So.2d 29 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) where the court improperly attempted to delegate to H.R.S. the authority to set the amount of restitution. No such delegation occurred here.

AFFIRMED.

DANIEL, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GOSHORN, Judge.

A.P., a child, appeals the order of commitment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services which provided in part that “Restitution is to be made.” A.P. asserts that the court erred by imposing restitution without notice and failing to determine the amount to be repaid. Because we find both arguments without merit, we affirm the commitment order.

A.P.’s first point lacks merit because it is clear from the disposition transcript that A.P. agreed to pay restitution. Regarding A.P.’s second point, we construe the court’s order as a reservation of jurisdiction to set the amount of restitution in the event the amount is not otherwise agreed to. The instant case is distinguishable from M.A.R. v. State, 433 So.2d 29 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) where the court improperly attempted to delegate to H.R.S. the authority to set the amount of restitution. No such delegation occurred here.

AFFIRMED.

DANIEL, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

558 So. 2d 519, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1826, 1990 WL 31528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ap-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack