Oyola v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Oyola v. State

600 So. 2d 1273, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7187, 1992 WL 135052

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 19, 1992·No. No. 91-02822·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the appellant’s judgments and sentences. The appellant contends, and the appellee agrees, that the trial court erred in imposing restitution without allowing the appellant to present evidence concerning his ability to pay. Pope v. State, 575 So.2d 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order and remand for another restitution hearing.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and HALL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the appellant’s judgments and sentences. The appellant contends, and the appellee agrees, that the trial court erred in imposing restitution without allowing the appellant to present evidence concerning his ability to pay. Pope v. State, 575 So.2d 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order and remand for another restitution hearing.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and HALL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Oyola v. State, 600 So. 2d 1273, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7187, 1992 WL 135052 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

600 So. 2d 1273 (Oyola v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related