Waller v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Waller v. State

550 So. 2d 1190, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2546, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6097, 1989 WL 129798

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 2, 1989·No. No. 88-1990·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court has the responsibility to determine the correct amount of restitution under section 948.03(l)(e), Florida Statutes, and in this case erred in delegating its responsibility to the probation officer. See Hamrick v. State, 532 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The appellant’s other point on appeal is without merit.

That part of the order of probation providing for restitution to be determined by the probation officer is reversed and the cause is remanded for the trial court to determine the correct amount of restitution, after notice and hearing.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

COWART and GOSHORN, JJ., and HARRIS, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court has the responsibility to determine the correct amount of restitution under section 948.03(l)(e), Florida Statutes, and in this case erred in delegating its responsibility to the probation officer. See Hamrick v. State, 532 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The appellant’s other point on appeal is without merit.

That part of the order of probation providing for restitution to be determined by the probation officer is reversed and the cause is remanded for the trial court to determine the correct amount of restitution, after notice and hearing.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

COWART and GOSHORN, JJ., and HARRIS, Associate Judge, concur.

Waller v. State, 550 So. 2d 1190, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2546, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6097, 1989 WL 129798 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

550 So. 2d 1190 (Waller v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related