Domin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Domin v. State

712 So. 2d 847, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8488, 1998 WL 390850

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 15, 1998

DocketNo. 98-1585

StatusPublished

This text of 712 So. 2d 847 (Domin 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

Domin v. State, 712 So. 2d 847, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8488, 1998 WL 390850 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s summary denial without the attachment of any record excerpts, of appellant’s rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by imposing an amount of restitution to be paid to the victim without first making a proper assessment of his ability to pay. Appellant alleges further that his counsel was ineffective for permitting the restitution order to be entered without objection as appellant had advised counsel that he no longer had an ability to pay the restitution amount that was once discussed to be made part of a plea.

State concedes and we agree that these issues cannot be resolved without either record attachments to refute appellant’s claim or an evidentiary hearing. See Fernandez v. State, 701 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

STONE, C.J., and STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s summary denial without the attachment of any record excerpts, of appellant’s rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by imposing an amount of restitution to be paid to the victim without first making a proper assessment of his ability to pay. Appellant alleges further that his counsel was ineffective for permitting the restitution order to be entered without objection as appellant had advised counsel that he no longer had an ability to pay the restitution amount that was once discussed to be made part of a plea.

State concedes and we agree that these issues cannot be resolved without either record attachments to refute appellant’s claim or an evidentiary hearing. See Fernandez v. State, 701 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

STONE, C.J., and STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

712 So. 2d 847, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8488, 1998 WL 390850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/domin-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack