Harrington v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harrington v. State

516 So. 2d 308, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2777, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11304, 1987 WL 2129

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 4, 1987

DocketNo. 87-405

StatusPublished

This text of 516 So. 2d 308 (Harrington 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

Harrington v. State, 516 So. 2d 308, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2777, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11304, 1987 WL 2129 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this case is whether a restitution order mandating that Harrington compensate the victim of a traffic accident for damages from the accident is proper where the only crime Harrington was convicted of was leaving the scene of an accident involving injury in violation of section 316.062, Florida Statutes (1985). Our cases of Williams v. State, 505 So.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), Riner v. State, 389 So.2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), and DiOrio v. State, 359 So.2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), have all held that such restitution order is improper. Accordingly, the condition of Harrington’s probation requiring restitution is stricken and the case is remanded for an order in accordance with this opinion.

We acknowledge that our decision is in direct conflict with Bowling v. State, 479 So.2d 146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

Reversed and remanded.

DANAHY, C.J., FRANK, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this case is whether a restitution order mandating that Harrington compensate the victim of a traffic accident for damages from the accident is proper where the only crime Harrington was convicted of was leaving the scene of an accident involving injury in violation of section 316.062, Florida Statutes (1985). Our cases of Williams v. State, 505 So.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), Riner v. State, 389 So.2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), and DiOrio v. State, 359 So.2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), have all held that such restitution order is improper. Accordingly, the condition of Harrington’s probation requiring restitution is stricken and the case is remanded for an order in accordance with this opinion.

We acknowledge that our decision is in direct conflict with Bowling v. State, 479 So.2d 146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

Reversed and remanded.

DANAHY, C.J., FRANK, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 So. 2d 308, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2777, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11304, 1987 WL 2129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrington-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack