Blincoe v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blincoe v. State

371 So. 2d 595, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15136

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 1979

DocketNo. MM-205

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 371 So. 2d 595 (Blincoe 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

Blincoe v. State, 371 So. 2d 595, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15136 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

ERVIN, Judge.

Unlike Pope v. State, 368 So.2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), where we affirmed a special condition in an order of probation requiring restitution because the record did not show that notice of the proposed restitution was not given, the record here is sufficiently clear that no notice was provided appellant. Restitution was ordered at the same time of the sentencing proceeding. Appellant, convicted of grand larceny, contested the amount his employer claimed was stolen from him — unlike Pope. It is clear that notice of the proposed restitution must be provided a defendant and an opportunity afforded him to be heard on the amount of damage or loss. Fresneda v. State, 347 So.2d 1021 (Fla.1977); Kroenke v. State, 366 So.2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

The cause is remanded for the purpose of conducting a restitution hearing as required by Fresneda.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Acting C. J., and LARRY G. SMITH, J., concur.

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

ERVIN, Judge.

Unlike Pope v. State, 368 So.2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), where we affirmed a special condition in an order of probation requiring restitution because the record did not show that notice of the proposed restitution was not given, the record here is sufficiently clear that no notice was provided appellant. Restitution was ordered at the same time of the sentencing proceeding. Appellant, convicted of grand larceny, contested the amount his employer claimed was stolen from him — unlike Pope. It is clear that notice of the proposed restitution must be provided a defendant and an opportunity afforded him to be heard on the amount of damage or loss. Fresneda v. State, 347 So.2d 1021 (Fla.1977); Kroenke v. State, 366 So.2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

The cause is remanded for the purpose of conducting a restitution hearing as required by Fresneda.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Acting C. J., and LARRY G. SMITH, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

371 So. 2d 595, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blincoe-v-state-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack