Groen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Groen v. State

691 So. 2d 1171, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3990, 1997 WL 186284

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 18, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1323

StatusPublished

This text of 691 So. 2d 1171 (Groen 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

Groen v. State, 691 So. 2d 1171, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3990, 1997 WL 186284 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, the public defender has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Appellant has also filed a brief in proper person. Having reviewed the entire record, and considered the issues raised by appellant, we agree that no error requiring reversal of either the conviction or sentence occurred. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction, and the sentence imposed. However, we note that five “judgments and restitution orders” were entered, directing appellant to pay substantial amounts in restitution. It does not appear from the record [1172]*1172that appellant received notice of the intent to seek restitution, or an opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, we reverse the “judgments and restitution orders.” See, e.g., Norman v. State, 659 So.2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Williams v. State, 580 So.2d 345 (Fla. Bd DCA 1991). On remand, the trial court may again award restitution, provided that it complies with all applicable law.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, the public defender has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Appellant has also filed a brief in proper person. Having reviewed the entire record, and considered the issues raised by appellant, we agree that no error requiring reversal of either the conviction or sentence occurred. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction, and the sentence imposed. However, we note that five “judgments and restitution orders” were entered, directing appellant to pay substantial amounts in restitution. It does not appear from the record [1172]*1172that appellant received notice of the intent to seek restitution, or an opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, we reverse the “judgments and restitution orders.” See, e.g., Norman v. State, 659 So.2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Williams v. State, 580 So.2d 345 (Fla. Bd DCA 1991). On remand, the trial court may again award restitution, provided that it complies with all applicable law.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

691 So. 2d 1171, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3990, 1997 WL 186284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groen-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack