Benson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Benson v. State

692 So. 2d 140, 1996 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 279, 1996 WL 637475

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedNovember 1, 1996

DocketCR-95-1141

StatusPublished

This text of 692 So. 2d 140 (Benson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benson v. State, 692 So. 2d 140, 1996 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 279, 1996 WL 637475 (Ala. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, Judge.

The appellant, Daniel Dean Benson, appeals the restitution order that orders him to pay $1250.28 in restitution after entering guilty pleas to two counts of theft of property in the first degree. The State’s motion to remand this ease to the trial court so that the trial court may enter an order in compliance with § 15-18-69, Ala.Code 1975, is due to be granted.¹ Specifically, the trial court is ordered to state its findings regarding the inclusion of the “Lunar light” and the “Juna light”, which the appellant maintains were not part of the stolen property, in the restitution calculation and the underlying facts and circumstances on which it bases its findings.

In remanding this case, we authorize the trial court to conduct additional hearings if it determines that the evidence in the existing record is insufficient on which to base an amendment to its previous restitution order. The return to remand should include a transcript of any additional hearing.

The trial court shall take all action directed in sufficient time to permit the circuit clerk to make a proper return to this court at the earliest possible time within 42 days of the release of this opinion.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

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

COBB, Judge.

The appellant, Daniel Dean Benson, appeals the restitution order that orders him to pay $1250.28 in restitution after entering guilty pleas to two counts of theft of property in the first degree. The State’s motion to remand this ease to the trial court so that the trial court may enter an order in compliance with § 15-18-69, Ala.Code 1975, is due to be granted.¹ Specifically, the trial court is ordered to state its findings regarding the inclusion of the “Lunar light” and the “Juna light”, which the appellant maintains were not part of the stolen property, in the restitution calculation and the underlying facts and circumstances on which it bases its findings.

In remanding this case, we authorize the trial court to conduct additional hearings if it determines that the evidence in the existing record is insufficient on which to base an amendment to its previous restitution order. The return to remand should include a transcript of any additional hearing.

The trial court shall take all action directed in sufficient time to permit the circuit clerk to make a proper return to this court at the earliest possible time within 42 days of the release of this opinion.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

692 So. 2d 140, 1996 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 279, 1996 WL 637475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benson-v-state-alacrimapp-1996.