T.S. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

T.S. v. State

693 So. 2d 119, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4960, 1997 WL 232254

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 9, 1997

DocketNo. 96-00584

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 693 So. 2d 119 (T.S. 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

T.S. v. State, 693 So. 2d 119, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4960, 1997 WL 232254 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellants challenge the trial court order adjudicating them delinquent and ordering restitution in the amount of $11,874.75. We find no merit in either of the two issues raised on appeal and affirm the adjudication of delinquency. We do, however, agree with appellants’ argument that the written restitution order failed to clarify appellants’ responsibility for the restitution amount of $11,-874.75. We conclude, based on the record before us and the stipulation of the parties, that the court orally announced that appellants were each responsible, jointly and severally, with another co-defendant for $9,265.50 of the amount imposed, and T.S. and M.S. were each also responsible, jointly and severally, for the remaining amount of $2,609.25.

Accordingly, we remand for correction of the restitution order to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Evans v. State, 678 So.2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In all other respects, the restitution order is affirmed.

SCHOONOVER and FULMER, JJ., concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellants challenge the trial court order adjudicating them delinquent and ordering restitution in the amount of $11,874.75. We find no merit in either of the two issues raised on appeal and affirm the adjudication of delinquency. We do, however, agree with appellants’ argument that the written restitution order failed to clarify appellants’ responsibility for the restitution amount of $11,-874.75. We conclude, based on the record before us and the stipulation of the parties, that the court orally announced that appellants were each responsible, jointly and severally, with another co-defendant for $9,265.50 of the amount imposed, and T.S. and M.S. were each also responsible, jointly and severally, for the remaining amount of $2,609.25.

Accordingly, we remand for correction of the restitution order to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Evans v. State, 678 So.2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In all other respects, the restitution order is affirmed.

SCHOONOVER and FULMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 So. 2d 119, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4960, 1997 WL 232254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ts-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack