Cada v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cada v. State

382 So. 2d 405, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15880

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 9, 1980

DocketNo. 79-699

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 382 So. 2d 405 (Cada 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

Cada v. State, 382 So. 2d 405, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15880 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William Frank Cada appeals his placement on probation after a jury’s verdict of guilty of battery on a law enforcement officer.¹ While we find no merit in appellant’s first point, we agree that the trial court erred in imposing a requirement that appellant pay restitution in an “amount, mode and manner to be determined by the probation officer.”

It is improper for the trial judge to delegate to the probation supervisor the authority to determine the amount of restitution appellant must pay. Fresneda v. State, 347 So.2d 1021 (Fla.1977); Cothron v. State, 377 So.2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); McClure v. State, 371 So.2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Kroenke v. State, 366 So.2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert, denied 374 So.2d 99 (Fla.1979). Appellant is entitled to a hearing before the trial court to determine the amount of restitution.

Accordingly, this case is remanded with instructions to hold a hearing as to the amount of restitution appellant is to pay. The order placing appellant on probation is affirmed in all other respects.

ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., and RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

William Frank Cada appeals his placement on probation after a jury’s verdict of guilty of battery on a law enforcement officer.¹ While we find no merit in appellant’s first point, we agree that the trial court erred in imposing a requirement that appellant pay restitution in an “amount, mode and manner to be determined by the probation officer.”

It is improper for the trial judge to delegate to the probation supervisor the authority to determine the amount of restitution appellant must pay. Fresneda v. State, 347 So.2d 1021 (Fla.1977); Cothron v. State, 377 So.2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); McClure v. State, 371 So.2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Kroenke v. State, 366 So.2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert, denied 374 So.2d 99 (Fla.1979). Appellant is entitled to a hearing before the trial court to determine the amount of restitution.

Accordingly, this case is remanded with instructions to hold a hearing as to the amount of restitution appellant is to pay. The order placing appellant on probation is affirmed in all other respects.

ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., and RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

382 So. 2d 405, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cada-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack