Argote v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Argote v. State

433 So. 2d 1013, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19589

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 7, 1983

DocketNo. 83-205

StatusPublished

This text of 433 So. 2d 1013 (Argote 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

Argote v. State, 433 So. 2d 1013, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19589 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Where, as here, the defendant, as part of a plea bargain, acknowledged his responsibility for charges to be dismissed and agreed to make restitution to the victims of the dismissed charges, as well as the victims of the crimes upon which he pleaded guilty, a condition of probation requiring such complete restitution was properly imposed, see Crowder v. State, 334 So.2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Second, since the defendant was given an opportunity to be heard on the amount of restitution determined to be owing, see Miller v. State, 407 So.2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Goodson v. State, 400 So.2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), and objected not to the amount, but to the propriety of the court requiring restitution on the dismissed charges, he will not now be heard to complain that the amount determined was wrong. See Pope v. State, 368 So.2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Where, as here, the defendant, as part of a plea bargain, acknowledged his responsibility for charges to be dismissed and agreed to make restitution to the victims of the dismissed charges, as well as the victims of the crimes upon which he pleaded guilty, a condition of probation requiring such complete restitution was properly imposed, see Crowder v. State, 334 So.2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Second, since the defendant was given an opportunity to be heard on the amount of restitution determined to be owing, see Miller v. State, 407 So.2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Goodson v. State, 400 So.2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), and objected not to the amount, but to the propriety of the court requiring restitution on the dismissed charges, he will not now be heard to complain that the amount determined was wrong. See Pope v. State, 368 So.2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

433 So. 2d 1013, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/argote-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack