Morgan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Morgan v. State

611 So. 2d 628, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1421, 1993 WL 20432

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 3, 1993

DocketNo. 92-0503

StatusPublished

This text of 611 So. 2d 628 (Morgan 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

611 So. 2d 628, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1421, 1993 WL 20432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.