Maples v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Maples v. State

397 So. 2d 1146, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19106

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 1, 1981

DocketNo. 80-282

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 397 So. 2d 1146 (Maples 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

Maples v. State, 397 So. 2d 1146, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19106 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

ORFINGER, Judge.

Appellant’s contention that the verdict of the jury finding him guilty of grand theft was contrary to the weight of the evidence is without merit and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

He complains also of error in the imposition of certain conditions of probation in his split sentence. One condition required that he make restitution to the victim of $20,799.00, and appellant correctly contends that this condition could not be imposed without first giving him an opportunity to be heard. Although restitution may properly be made a condition of probation,¹ a defendant is entitled to notice and a hearing as part of the process by which the amount of restitution is determined by the court. Fresneda v. State, 347 So.2d 1021 (Fla.1977). The record reflects defendant requested an opportunity to be heard on the amount of damage to the victim, contending that the amount mentioned was inflated, but this request was denied.² Cf. Barlow v. State, 388 So.2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (where no objection was raised in the trial court).

Appellant also correctly contends that the condition of probation which authorizes any probation officer and any law enforcement officer to conduct a search of appellant, his premises and vehicles at any time, is invalid with respect to search by any law enforcement officer, although it is correct insofar as it authorizes searches by appellant’s probation supervisor. Grubbs v. State, 373 So.2d 905 (Fla.1979); Elkins v. State, 388 So.2d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Condition (14) of the probation order is modified to apply only to appellant’s probation supervisors and as modified is affirmed. Condition (10) of the probation order is set aside and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to afford appellant notice and an opportunity to be heard on the amount of restitution to be imposed. In so requiring a hearing, we express no view on the correctness of the amount required to be paid, but hold only that appellant is entitled to be heard before the court determines the amount.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

ORFINGER, Judge.

Appellant’s contention that the verdict of the jury finding him guilty of grand theft was contrary to the weight of the evidence is without merit and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

He complains also of error in the imposition of certain conditions of probation in his split sentence. One condition required that he make restitution to the victim of $20,799.00, and appellant correctly contends that this condition could not be imposed without first giving him an opportunity to be heard. Although restitution may properly be made a condition of probation,¹ a defendant is entitled to notice and a hearing as part of the process by which the amount of restitution is determined by the court. Fresneda v. State, 347 So.2d 1021 (Fla.1977). The record reflects defendant requested an opportunity to be heard on the amount of damage to the victim, contending that the amount mentioned was inflated, but this request was denied.² Cf. Barlow v. State, 388 So.2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (where no objection was raised in the trial court).

Appellant also correctly contends that the condition of probation which authorizes any probation officer and any law enforcement officer to conduct a search of appellant, his premises and vehicles at any time, is invalid with respect to search by any law enforcement officer, although it is correct insofar as it authorizes searches by appellant’s probation supervisor. Grubbs v. State, 373 So.2d 905 (Fla.1979); Elkins v. State, 388 So.2d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Condition (14) of the probation order is modified to apply only to appellant’s probation supervisors and as modified is affirmed. Condition (10) of the probation order is set aside and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to afford appellant notice and an opportunity to be heard on the amount of restitution to be imposed. In so requiring a hearing, we express no view on the correctness of the amount required to be paid, but hold only that appellant is entitled to be heard before the court determines the amount.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 So. 2d 1146, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maples-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack