Morgan v. State

611 So. 2d 628, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1421, 1993 WL 20432
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Morgan v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 557 So. 2d 605
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 3, 1993·No. No. 92-0503·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error in the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on self defense. Therefore, we affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence.

The trial court ordered appellant to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $4,253.02 and “future bills deemed necessary.” The state concedes the trial court erred when it ordered appellant to make restitution of an undetermined sum of future bills deemed necessary. We agree and reverse that part of the order of restitution. We remand this case to the trial court with instructions to delete the provision requiring restitution of “future bills [629]*629deemed necessary” from the order of restitution.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

LETTS, HERSEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

Morgan v. State, 611 So. 2d 628, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1421, 1993 WL 20432 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

611 So. 2d 628 (Morgan v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.