Gregg v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gregg v. State

602 So. 2d 996, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8921, 1992 WL 193007

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 13, 1992

DocketNo. 91-2060

StatusPublished

This text of 602 So. 2d 996 (Gregg 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

Gregg v. State, 602 So. 2d 996, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8921, 1992 WL 193007 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged as a principal for his part in an armed robbery that was physically committed by another. Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted, sentenced, and subsequently ordered to pay restitution. On appeal, he argues (1) that the evidence was insufficient to establish his participation and criminal intent, and (2) that restitution was imposed without a hearing and for losses not attributable to the charged robbery of a convenience store. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Because competent substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, we affirm the convictions without further elaboration. As to the other issue, the state correctly concedes error in the imposition of restitution without a hearing. See Laster v. State, 587 So.2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Consequently, we must vacate the restitution order and remand the case for a hearing pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1989). On remand, restitution should only be imposed for losses attributable to the convenience store robbery.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

ERVIN, MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged as a principal for his part in an armed robbery that was physically committed by another. Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted, sentenced, and subsequently ordered to pay restitution. On appeal, he argues (1) that the evidence was insufficient to establish his participation and criminal intent, and (2) that restitution was imposed without a hearing and for losses not attributable to the charged robbery of a convenience store. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Because competent substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, we affirm the convictions without further elaboration. As to the other issue, the state correctly concedes error in the imposition of restitution without a hearing. See Laster v. State, 587 So.2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Consequently, we must vacate the restitution order and remand the case for a hearing pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1989). On remand, restitution should only be imposed for losses attributable to the convenience store robbery.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

ERVIN, MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

602 So. 2d 996, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8921, 1992 WL 193007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregg-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack