Oliverio v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Oliverio v. State

600 So. 2d 534, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6867, 1992 WL 131820

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 17, 1992

DocketNo. 91-2774

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 600 So. 2d 534 (Oliverio 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

Oliverio v. State, 600 So. 2d 534, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6867, 1992 WL 131820 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse an order granting restitution as the record reflects a failure to fully comply with the prior opinion in this case, Oliverio v. State, 583 So.2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

There, we reversed the restitution order as imposed without determining the factors in subsections 775.089(6) and (7), Florida Statutes. On remand, the issue of the defendant’s resources was not addressed. See Mounds v. State, 526 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). We have considered Cheatham v. State, 593 So.2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) but deem it inapposite, Additionally, on remand, notice of hearing is to be furnished to the defendant directly. Although the defendant need not necessarily be transported back to court from out of [535]*535state incarceration, he must at least be afforded the opportunity to be heard through other means.

HERSEY, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse an order granting restitution as the record reflects a failure to fully comply with the prior opinion in this case, Oliverio v. State, 583 So.2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

There, we reversed the restitution order as imposed without determining the factors in subsections 775.089(6) and (7), Florida Statutes. On remand, the issue of the defendant’s resources was not addressed. See Mounds v. State, 526 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). We have considered Cheatham v. State, 593 So.2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) but deem it inapposite, Additionally, on remand, notice of hearing is to be furnished to the defendant directly. Although the defendant need not necessarily be transported back to court from out of [535]*535state incarceration, he must at least be afforded the opportunity to be heard through other means.

HERSEY, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

600 So. 2d 534, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6867, 1992 WL 131820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliverio-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack