E.M. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

E.M. v. State

761 So. 2d 1177, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8066, 2000 WL 827191

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 28, 2000

DocketNo. 4D99-2497

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 761 So. 2d 1177 (E.M. 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

E.M. v. State, 761 So. 2d 1177, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8066, 2000 WL 827191 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the April 30, 1999 order reinstating appellant’s community control. The trial court was without the power to enter the order after previously terminating supervision.

We affirm the restitution order fixing the amount of restitution at $30,725.04. Section 985.231(l)(a)l.a., Florida Statutes (1999) “should be read to apply to payments mandated as a condition of community control, and not to the setting of a total amount of restitution in a restitution order.” M.H. v. State, 698 So.2d 395, 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (discussing the effect of section 39.054(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes (1995)); see § 985.01(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (1999) (identifying as a purpose of Chapter 985 to provide “whenever possible restitution to the victim of the offense”). In this case, the practical effect of the restitution order is to leave open the possibility of a civil remedy under section 775.089(5).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

STONE, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the April 30, 1999 order reinstating appellant’s community control. The trial court was without the power to enter the order after previously terminating supervision.

We affirm the restitution order fixing the amount of restitution at $30,725.04. Section 985.231(l)(a)l.a., Florida Statutes (1999) “should be read to apply to payments mandated as a condition of community control, and not to the setting of a total amount of restitution in a restitution order.” M.H. v. State, 698 So.2d 395, 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (discussing the effect of section 39.054(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes (1995)); see § 985.01(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (1999) (identifying as a purpose of Chapter 985 to provide “whenever possible restitution to the victim of the offense”). In this case, the practical effect of the restitution order is to leave open the possibility of a civil remedy under section 775.089(5).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

STONE, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

761 So. 2d 1177, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8066, 2000 WL 827191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/em-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack