Godfrey v. State
506 So. 2d 1158, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1231, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8212
Opinion
We reverse the order of the trial court requiring restitution since it is apparent from the record that restitution was not contemplated by the plea agreement. See G.H. v. State, 414 So.2d 1135, 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also Pollock v. Bryson, 450 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (where plea agreement contemplated the restitution ordered, defendant is estopped from raising alleged illegality of the condition); Dent v. State, 432 So.2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (same).
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Godfrey v. State, 506 So. 2d 1158, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1231, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8212 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).
506 So. 2d 1158 (Godfrey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Blasco v. State
601 So. 2d 1264 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)