C.A.M. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

C.A.M. v. State

24 So. 3d 1274, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20525

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 31, 2009

DocketNo. 1D09-3700

StatusPublished

This text of 24 So. 3d 1274 (C.A.M. 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

C.A.M. v. State, 24 So. 3d 1274, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20525 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because Appellant, a juvenile, was not present for the first session of a two-part restitution hearing, and because there is nothing in the record to suggest a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to attend, the juvenile is entitled to a new restitution hearing. J.C. v. State, 1 So.3d 1196 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); I.M. v. State, 955 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

In addition, the record contains no determination by the trial court that the restitution amount did “not exceed an amount the child and the parent or guardian could reasonably be expected to pay or make.” § 985.437(2), Fla. Stat. (2009); M.W.G. v. State, 945 So.2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

We reverse the amended restitution order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BARFIELD, VAN NORTWICK, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

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