Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

431 So. 2d 1017

Docket No. 82-1879.

Turner v. State

Henry James TURNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 30, 1983.

Rehearing Denied June 15, 1983.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1983-03-30

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 1988

6 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“State did not show what portion of the victim's damages arose from appellant's acts, rather than those of his codefendants,”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Spivey v. State, 501 So. 2d 698 - Spivey v. State

Relies on 347 So. 2d 1021 - Fresneda v. State · Reeves v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-03-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Gary Caldwell, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Debra Mann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3DELL, Judge.

¶4Henry James Turner appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence thereon. He contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea made when the trial judge imposed restitution in addition to the sentence which the trial judge forecast during a plea conference.

¶5The record demonstrates that the length of sentence coincided with the discussions before the court. However, the court never raised the possibility of restitution during the plea negotiations, and neither the judge nor the prosecutor gave appellant notice and opportunity to be heard upon the issue. Reeves v. State,372 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Further, the trial judge imposed restitution on appellant alone for the *1018 full amount of the victim's claimed damages, despite the fact that four defendants perpetrated the crimes. The State did not show what portion of the victim's damages arose from appellant's acts, rather than those of his codefendants. See Fresneda v. State,347 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 1977). Finally, the trial judge did not comply with Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1981) in that he did not determine appellant's ability to pay, his financial resources or the burden that payment would impose upon him.

¶6Accordingly, we affirm appellant's conviction and the prison sentence, and remand with directions to strike that part of the sentence which imposes restitution.

¶7CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED IN PART.

¶8HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

/431/so2d/1017 · .json · Public domain