Cintron v. State
This text of 125 So. 3d 375 (Cintron 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.
Opinion
We agree with the State of Florida that appellant Walter Cintron is entitled to a new restitution hearing because over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court relied exclusively on hearsay when it imposed restitution. See J.L. v. State, 684 So.2d 883, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that the State cannot rely on hearsay testimony when the defense properly objects to its introduction, when proving the amount of loss attributable to stolen property). Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for a new evidentiary hearing on restitution. We affirm in all other respects.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
125 So. 3d 375, 2013 WL 5994220, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cintron-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.