Casler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Casler v. State

502 So. 2d 1374, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 644, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7010

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 27, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1573

StatusPublished

This text of 502 So. 2d 1374 (Casler 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

Casler v. State, 502 So. 2d 1374, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 644, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7010 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant appeals from the imposition of restitution as a condition of probation. We reverse.

Defendant contends that imposition of restitution as a condition of probation was erroneous because he had been given no notice that the state would seek to impose restitution. The state, citing Gilmore v. State, 479 So.2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), argues that the 1984 amendment to section 775.089, Florida Statutes, provides for restitution and that defendant was thereby on notice that restitution would be considered as a part of his sentencing. We disagree with the state. Defendant’s crime in this case occurred before the effective date of the amendment. The amendment therefore does not apply here, and defendant should have been given notice that the state would seek restitution as a condition of probation. See Gilford v. State, 487 So.2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

This cause is reversed and remanded for another hearing on the matter of restitution, at which the defendant will have the opportunity to be heard on the amount of restitution and to raise any objections, including objections to the assessment of the attorney’s fees incurred by the victim which were included in the restitution imposed and to which defendant objects as his second issue on appeal.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.

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

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant appeals from the imposition of restitution as a condition of probation. We reverse.

Defendant contends that imposition of restitution as a condition of probation was erroneous because he had been given no notice that the state would seek to impose restitution. The state, citing Gilmore v. State, 479 So.2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), argues that the 1984 amendment to section 775.089, Florida Statutes, provides for restitution and that defendant was thereby on notice that restitution would be considered as a part of his sentencing. We disagree with the state. Defendant’s crime in this case occurred before the effective date of the amendment. The amendment therefore does not apply here, and defendant should have been given notice that the state would seek restitution as a condition of probation. See Gilford v. State, 487 So.2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

This cause is reversed and remanded for another hearing on the matter of restitution, at which the defendant will have the opportunity to be heard on the amount of restitution and to raise any objections, including objections to the assessment of the attorney’s fees incurred by the victim which were included in the restitution imposed and to which defendant objects as his second issue on appeal.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 So. 2d 1374, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 644, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casler-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack