Nathan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nathan v. State

520 So. 2d 317, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 539, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 674, 1988 WL 13734

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 24, 1988·No. No. 86-2801·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from appellant’s conviction of battery and affray, we find error only in that the trial court delegated to appellant’s probation or community control officer the determination of the amount of restitution appellant was to make. On remand, the amount of any restitution to be imposed shall be determined by the trial court. Mansell v. State, 498 So.2d 604 (Fla.2d DCA 1986); Buchanan v. State, 483 So.2d 537 (Fla.2d DCA 1986). Appellant’s convictions are otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and PARKER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from appellant’s conviction of battery and affray, we find error only in that the trial court delegated to appellant’s probation or community control officer the determination of the amount of restitution appellant was to make. On remand, the amount of any restitution to be imposed shall be determined by the trial court. Mansell v. State, 498 So.2d 604 (Fla.2d DCA 1986); Buchanan v. State, 483 So.2d 537 (Fla.2d DCA 1986). Appellant’s convictions are otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and PARKER, JJ., concur.

Nathan v. State, 520 So. 2d 317, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 539, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 674, 1988 WL 13734 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

520 So. 2d 317 (Nathan v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related