Hodas v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hodas v. State

603 So. 2d 21, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7741, 1992 WL 161476

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 15, 1992

DocketNo. 90-3151

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 603 So. 2d 21 (Hodas 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

Hodas v. State, 603 So. 2d 21, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7741, 1992 WL 161476 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Harold Hodas, the appellant, was convicted of grand theft of a jewelry store. The trial court ordered Hodas to pay restitution in an amount to be determined. Because Hodas disputed the amounts which the jewelry store contended had been stolen, a restitution hearing was scheduled to take place. When the case was initially called for hearing an assistant public defender, who was standing in for the counsel who had represented Hodas throughout all earlier proceedings, indicated that he would need a few minutes to look over the file. The case was later recalled, but apparently took place without the presence of Hodas’ counsel. Restitution is a part of sentencing, D.T. v. State, 477 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), and the assistance of counsel is required at this critical stage of the criminal proceedings. Bowman v. State, 550 So.2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); and Brown v. State, 479 So.2d 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). In any event, the record fails to affirmatively show that the trial court offered Hodas assistance of counsel. We therefore [22]*22reverse the order of restitution and remand for a new hearing wherein Hodas will be afforded counsel. We find no merit to the other points which the appellant raises on appeal.

Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.

LETTS, J., ALDERMAN, JAMES E., Senior Justice, and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Harold Hodas, the appellant, was convicted of grand theft of a jewelry store. The trial court ordered Hodas to pay restitution in an amount to be determined. Because Hodas disputed the amounts which the jewelry store contended had been stolen, a restitution hearing was scheduled to take place. When the case was initially called for hearing an assistant public defender, who was standing in for the counsel who had represented Hodas throughout all earlier proceedings, indicated that he would need a few minutes to look over the file. The case was later recalled, but apparently took place without the presence of Hodas’ counsel. Restitution is a part of sentencing, D.T. v. State, 477 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), and the assistance of counsel is required at this critical stage of the criminal proceedings. Bowman v. State, 550 So.2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); and Brown v. State, 479 So.2d 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). In any event, the record fails to affirmatively show that the trial court offered Hodas assistance of counsel. We therefore [22]*22reverse the order of restitution and remand for a new hearing wherein Hodas will be afforded counsel. We find no merit to the other points which the appellant raises on appeal.

Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.

LETTS, J., ALDERMAN, JAMES E., Senior Justice, and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

603 So. 2d 21, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7741, 1992 WL 161476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodas-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack