J.M. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

J.M. v. State

633 So. 2d 1185, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 2653, 1994 WL 91823

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 24, 1994

DocketNo. 93-2992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 633 So. 2d 1185 (J.M. 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

J.M. v. State, 633 So. 2d 1185, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 2653, 1994 WL 91823 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

J.M. brings this appeal from his adjudication of delinquency and sentence of community control. He argues that the trial court erred in confiscating his two gold earrings “as a down payment” on his obligation to pay restitution. We agree with J.M. that there is no statutory or rule authority for the trial court to confiscate personal property of the defendant in order to secure payment of restitution. Cf A.A. v. Rolle, 604 So.2d 813 (Fla.1992). Furthermore, at the time the earrings were seized, neither the amount of restitution nor the value of the earrings had been established, so the seizure occurred without any knowledge of whether the earrings were worth more or less than the restitution due. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that J.M.’s property be returned.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ZEHMER, C.J., and JOANOS and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

J.M. brings this appeal from his adjudication of delinquency and sentence of community control. He argues that the trial court erred in confiscating his two gold earrings “as a down payment” on his obligation to pay restitution. We agree with J.M. that there is no statutory or rule authority for the trial court to confiscate personal property of the defendant in order to secure payment of restitution. Cf A.A. v. Rolle, 604 So.2d 813 (Fla.1992). Furthermore, at the time the earrings were seized, neither the amount of restitution nor the value of the earrings had been established, so the seizure occurred without any knowledge of whether the earrings were worth more or less than the restitution due. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that J.M.’s property be returned.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ZEHMER, C.J., and JOANOS and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 So. 2d 1185, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 2653, 1994 WL 91823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jm-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack