Stanco v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stanco v. State

578 So. 2d 864, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4410, 1991 WL 68860

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 3, 1991

DocketNo. 89-01576

StatusPublished

This text of 578 So. 2d 864 (Stanco 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

Stanco v. State, 578 So. 2d 864, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4410, 1991 WL 68860 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the imposition of restitution as a condition to defendant’s probation. We remand for further proceedings at which any amount of restitution then imposed shall be supported by sufficient evidence of the amount of damages defendant’s criminal conduct caused the victims. See Abbott v. State, 543 So.2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The state did not provide evidence either to rebut defendant’s testimony that all of the items he had received had been turned over to the police in working condition or to show the value of any such items after they had been so turned over. Nor apparently did the state show that defendant directly or indirectly caused the loss of items taken in the burglary which did not come into defendant’s hands. See Johnson v. State, 547 So.2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the imposition of restitution as a condition to defendant’s probation. We remand for further proceedings at which any amount of restitution then imposed shall be supported by sufficient evidence of the amount of damages defendant’s criminal conduct caused the victims. See Abbott v. State, 543 So.2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The state did not provide evidence either to rebut defendant’s testimony that all of the items he had received had been turned over to the police in working condition or to show the value of any such items after they had been so turned over. Nor apparently did the state show that defendant directly or indirectly caused the loss of items taken in the burglary which did not come into defendant’s hands. See Johnson v. State, 547 So.2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 So. 2d 864, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4410, 1991 WL 68860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanco-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack