Nettles v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nettles v. State

611 So. 2d 103, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13131, 1992 WL 388965

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 31, 1992

DocketNo. 92-1023

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 611 So. 2d 103 (Nettles 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

Nettles v. State, 611 So. 2d 103, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13131, 1992 WL 388965 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has appealed two restitution orders which we reverse based on lack of proof.

At the sentencing hearing the state offered no proof of restitution due other than the presentence investigation report (“PSI”). In one part of the PSI the figures ordered by the court did appear; however, the recommended restitution amounts in the PSI were substantially different. More important, the record reflects that appellant raised specific, bona fide objections to the damage values and requested a hearing on that issue, which the trial court refused. When a defendant raises a timely, bona fide objection to a restitution valuation contained in the PSI, the defendant is entitled to a hearing and the state must present competent, admissible evidence of the loss or damage caused by the offense. Loos v. State, 585 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Flanagan v. State, 536 So.2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We reject the state’s contention on appeal that appellant’s agreement to make “full restitution” as part of the plea agreement precluded his objection to the amount. We reverse the restitution orders and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GOSHORN, C.J., and COWART and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has appealed two restitution orders which we reverse based on lack of proof.

At the sentencing hearing the state offered no proof of restitution due other than the presentence investigation report (“PSI”). In one part of the PSI the figures ordered by the court did appear; however, the recommended restitution amounts in the PSI were substantially different. More important, the record reflects that appellant raised specific, bona fide objections to the damage values and requested a hearing on that issue, which the trial court refused. When a defendant raises a timely, bona fide objection to a restitution valuation contained in the PSI, the defendant is entitled to a hearing and the state must present competent, admissible evidence of the loss or damage caused by the offense. Loos v. State, 585 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Flanagan v. State, 536 So.2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We reject the state’s contention on appeal that appellant’s agreement to make “full restitution” as part of the plea agreement precluded his objection to the amount. We reverse the restitution orders and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GOSHORN, C.J., and COWART and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

611 So. 2d 103, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13131, 1992 WL 388965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nettles-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack