Bell v. State
535 So. 2d 645, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2748, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5569, 1988 WL 133933
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 16, 1988·No. No. 87-1511·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
Since appellant did not object to the trial court’s requirement that he pay restitution, he has waived that issue on appeal.
The trial judge’s oral pronouncement of sentence and his sentencing order adopt the specific restitution recommendations found in appellant’s presentence investigation report. This is not the sort of unlawful delegation of judicial responsibility to a probation officer that required reversal in Hamrick v. State, 532 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
The sentencing order is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bell v. State, 535 So. 2d 645, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2748, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5569, 1988 WL 133933 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).
535 So. 2d 645 (Bell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Aldana v. State
552 So. 2d 1160 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)