Romano v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Romano v. State

648 So. 2d 329, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 443, 1995 WL 25696

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 25, 1995·No. No. 94-1052·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the conviction and sentence, without prejudice to the appellant raising the ineffective assistance of counsel claims initially in the trial court. See Weber v. State, 411 So.2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We reverse the restitution order because no restitution hearing was conducted. See section 775.089(6) and (7), Fla.Stat. (1993); Johnson v. State, 547 So.2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Therefore, this matter is returned to the trial court to set aside the restitution order for further proceedings thereafter.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the conviction and sentence, without prejudice to the appellant raising the ineffective assistance of counsel claims initially in the trial court. See Weber v. State, 411 So.2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We reverse the restitution order because no restitution hearing was conducted. See section 775.089(6) and (7), Fla.Stat. (1993); Johnson v. State, 547 So.2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Therefore, this matter is returned to the trial court to set aside the restitution order for further proceedings thereafter.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part with directions.

Romano v. State, 648 So. 2d 329, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 443, 1995 WL 25696 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

648 So. 2d 329 (Romano v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related