Waller v. State

550 So. 2d 1190, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2546, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6097, 1989 WL 129798
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 2, 1989
DocketNo. 88-1990
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

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

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

Related

Gilbert v. State
600 So. 2d 557 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Kinman v. State
550 So. 2d 1190 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
550 So. 2d 1190, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2546, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6097, 1989 WL 129798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waller-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.