Pope v. State
This text of 575 So. 2d 307 (Pope 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.
Opinion
Edith Shadwick POPE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
*308 James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Edith Shadwick Pope, challenges the trial court's determination that she make restitution payments totaling $1,330.28. We find no merit in her contention that the state did not present sufficient competent evidence to establish the amount of restitution. We agree, however, that the court erred by not allowing the appellant to testify at the restitution hearing with regard to her ability to pay restitution. See § 775.089(6), Fla. Stat. (1987). We, accordingly, reverse and remand for another restitution hearing.
We also strike the court costs and attorney's fees without prejudice to the state to seek reimposition after proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
Reversed and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
575 So. 2d 307, 1991 WL 24866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pope-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.