B.H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

B.H. v. State

971 So. 2d 288, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 256

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 11, 2008·No. No. 2D07-1158·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

B.H. appeals the trial court’s restitution order requiring her to satisfy two obligations totaling in excess of $125,000. B.H. asserts that the trial court committed two errors. First, the trial court failed to comply with section 985.437(2), Florida Statutes (2006), by not determining a restitution amount that the child could reasonably be expected to pay. Second, the trial court improperly relied on hearsay evidence in ordering the amount of restitution. The State concedes error. We agree.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new evidentiary hearing.

Reversed.

FULMER, CASANUEVA, and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

B.H. appeals the trial court’s restitution order requiring her to satisfy two obligations totaling in excess of $125,000. B.H. asserts that the trial court committed two errors. First, the trial court failed to comply with section 985.437(2), Florida Statutes (2006), by not determining a restitution amount that the child could reasonably be expected to pay. Second, the trial court improperly relied on hearsay evidence in ordering the amount of restitution. The State concedes error. We agree.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new evidentiary hearing.

Reversed.

FULMER, CASANUEVA, and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

B.H. v. State, 971 So. 2d 288, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 256 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

971 So. 2d 288 (B.H. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related