Gardipee v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gardipee v. State

620 So. 2d 255, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6743, 1993 WL 221423

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 23, 1993

DocketNo. 92-00374

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 620 So. 2d 255 (Gardipee 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

Gardipee v. State, 620 So. 2d 255, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6743, 1993 WL 221423 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

THREADGILL, Judge.

The appellant, Thomas Gardipee, appeals his judgments and sentences for attempted second-degree murder and armed trespass. We affirm, except for the order imposing [256]*256restitution. At sentencing, the appellant objected to the amount of restitution being requested by the state. The trial court stated that the appellant would be permitted a restitution hearing; however, the restitution hearing was never held. The trial court imposed restitution as a condition of probation at sentencing with the amount to be determined at a later date. The trial court subsequently entered a restitution order for $54,419.87. This amount was based upon bills submitted by the victim at the sentencing hearing.

We reverse the order imposing restitution and remand for a restitution hearing. See Reynolds v. State, 598 So.2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The appellant has the right to be present at the hearing.

Affirmed; remanded for hearing.

FRANK, C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.

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

THREADGILL, Judge.

The appellant, Thomas Gardipee, appeals his judgments and sentences for attempted second-degree murder and armed trespass. We affirm, except for the order imposing [256]*256restitution. At sentencing, the appellant objected to the amount of restitution being requested by the state. The trial court stated that the appellant would be permitted a restitution hearing; however, the restitution hearing was never held. The trial court imposed restitution as a condition of probation at sentencing with the amount to be determined at a later date. The trial court subsequently entered a restitution order for $54,419.87. This amount was based upon bills submitted by the victim at the sentencing hearing.

We reverse the order imposing restitution and remand for a restitution hearing. See Reynolds v. State, 598 So.2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The appellant has the right to be present at the hearing.

Affirmed; remanded for hearing.

FRANK, C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

620 So. 2d 255, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6743, 1993 WL 221423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardipee-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack