King v. State
546 So. 2d 122, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1669, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3953, 1989 WL 77492
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 13, 1989·No. No. 88-2279·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
The defendant appeals that part of his sentencing requirement that he pay restitution as outlined in the presentence investigation report as directed by the probation officer.
Pursuant to our decision in James v. State, 499 So.2d 24 (Pla. 1st DCA 1986) we affirm the probation order but remand to the trial court for a prompt hearing to establish the amount of restitution the defendant owes. We further adopt the caveat in James that appeals such as the instant one are frivolous where remedies are available before the trial court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
King v. State, 546 So. 2d 122, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1669, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3953, 1989 WL 77492 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).
546 So. 2d 122 (King v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Estate of Patout v. City of New Iberia
849 So. 2d 535 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2003)
Walls v. State
609 So. 2d 83 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Robinson v. State
589 So. 2d 469 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)