Ragatz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ragatz v. State

679 So. 2d 62, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9281, 1996 WL 497010

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 4, 1996

DocketNo. 95-3356

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 679 So. 2d 62 (Ragatz 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

Ragatz v. State, 679 So. 2d 62, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9281, 1996 WL 497010 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

POLEN, Judge.

David Ragatz pled guilty to grand theft of boat parts. He was placed on three years probation and ordered to pay restitution. Ragatz appeals the trial court’s determination of the amount of $7,267.49 as restitution, as well as the trial court’s decision to have the probation officer determine his ability to pay the restitution. We affirm and write only to clarify that under normal circumstances it is error for the trial court to delegate to probation its responsibility to determine the defendant’s ability to pay. See Strickland v. State, 610 So.2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (trial court erred by delegating to probation its responsibility to determine defendant’s ability to pay and determine the amount of monthly payments). However, at bar any such error was invited as defense counsel specifically asked for probation “to do an ability to pay.” See Buggs v. State, 640 So.2d 90 (Fla.1st DCA 1994) (party may not make or invite error at trial and then take advantage of the error on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

POLEN, Judge.

David Ragatz pled guilty to grand theft of boat parts. He was placed on three years probation and ordered to pay restitution. Ragatz appeals the trial court’s determination of the amount of $7,267.49 as restitution, as well as the trial court’s decision to have the probation officer determine his ability to pay the restitution. We affirm and write only to clarify that under normal circumstances it is error for the trial court to delegate to probation its responsibility to determine the defendant’s ability to pay. See Strickland v. State, 610 So.2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (trial court erred by delegating to probation its responsibility to determine defendant’s ability to pay and determine the amount of monthly payments). However, at bar any such error was invited as defense counsel specifically asked for probation “to do an ability to pay.” See Buggs v. State, 640 So.2d 90 (Fla.1st DCA 1994) (party may not make or invite error at trial and then take advantage of the error on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

679 So. 2d 62, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9281, 1996 WL 497010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ragatz-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack