Teasley v. State

640 So. 2d 1239, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7910, 1994 WL 416137
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 11, 1994·No. Nos. 93-1554, 93-1593·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants, after pleading nolo conten-dere to burglary of a dwelling, challenge subsequent trial court orders directing Teas-ley to pay $7,500 in restitution1 and R.M.B. to pay $1,500 in restitution.2 We reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.

The amount of restitution that Teasley was ordered to pay for a native American ceremonial pipe is not supported by the evidence. We accordingly reverse and remand for another hearing to determine the amount of restitution to be ordered for this item. In all other respects, the orders on appeal are affirmed.

Reversed in part and remanded.

BARFIELD, MINER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

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

Teasley v. State, 640 So. 2d 1239, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7910, 1994 WL 416137 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

640 So. 2d 1239 (Teasley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilson v. State
640 So. 2d 1238 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
In the Interest of H.S. v. State
640 So. 2d 1238 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)