Crowley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crowley v. State

710 So. 2d 750, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5951, 1998 WL 264044

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 27, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2093

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 710 So. 2d 750 (Crowley 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

Crowley v. State, 710 So. 2d 750, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5951, 1998 WL 264044 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with battery with a deadly weapon, pled to reduced charges, and appeals an order of restitution. We reverse that portion of the restitution order requiring appellant to pay medical expenses, because the only evidence of medical expenses was the testimony of the victim that she had incurred expenses and would incur expenses in the future. She did not submit copies of any of her bills. If her testimony had been accompanied by her bills, the proof would have been sufficient as proof of past expenses. A.J. v. State, 677 So.2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Because the trial court erroneously concluded that there had been sufficient proof, we remand for another restitution hearing in order that the victim will have the opportunity to prove her past expenses under A J. We caution the parties, however, that A.J. only extends to medical expenses already incurred, and that additional proof will be necessary if the victim is to be awarded future medical expenses. Sims v. State, 637 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) on which the state relies for proof of future medical is distinguishable because, unlike the present ease, there was no objection to the testimony in Sims. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., and BROWNELL, SCOTT M., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with battery with a deadly weapon, pled to reduced charges, and appeals an order of restitution. We reverse that portion of the restitution order requiring appellant to pay medical expenses, because the only evidence of medical expenses was the testimony of the victim that she had incurred expenses and would incur expenses in the future. She did not submit copies of any of her bills. If her testimony had been accompanied by her bills, the proof would have been sufficient as proof of past expenses. A.J. v. State, 677 So.2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Because the trial court erroneously concluded that there had been sufficient proof, we remand for another restitution hearing in order that the victim will have the opportunity to prove her past expenses under A J. We caution the parties, however, that A.J. only extends to medical expenses already incurred, and that additional proof will be necessary if the victim is to be awarded future medical expenses. Sims v. State, 637 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) on which the state relies for proof of future medical is distinguishable because, unlike the present ease, there was no objection to the testimony in Sims. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., and BROWNELL, SCOTT M., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

710 So. 2d 750, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5951, 1998 WL 264044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crowley-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack