Choppolla v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Choppolla v. State

594 So. 2d 344, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2396, 1992 WL 41505

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 4, 1992·No. No. 91-01941·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mr. Choppolla was charged with theft of an automobile. He pled to the lesser offense of trespass to a conveyance, and an order of restitution was entered on that conviction. At the restitution hearing, the defendant objected to the entry of the restitution order because the state had not established that the proposed damages were directly or indirectly related to the punished offense. See Salvador v. State, 1992 WL 16023, 17 F.L.W. D374 (Fla.2d DCA Jan. 29, 1992). The trial court entered the restitution order without requiring the state to prove this connection. Accordingly, we strike the order of restitution.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and CAMPBELL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Mr. Choppolla was charged with theft of an automobile. He pled to the lesser offense of trespass to a conveyance, and an order of restitution was entered on that conviction. At the restitution hearing, the defendant objected to the entry of the restitution order because the state had not established that the proposed damages were directly or indirectly related to the punished offense. See Salvador v. State, 1992 WL 16023, 17 F.L.W. D374 (Fla.2d DCA Jan. 29, 1992). The trial court entered the restitution order without requiring the state to prove this connection. Accordingly, we strike the order of restitution.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and CAMPBELL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Choppolla v. State, 594 So. 2d 344, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2396, 1992 WL 41505 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

594 So. 2d 344 (Choppolla v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related