Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

498 So. 2d 604

498 So.2d 604

11 Fla.L.Weekly 2569

Docket No. 86-1110.

Mansell v. State

Mitchell M. MANSELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 3, 1986.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1986-12-03

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The amount of restitution is a determination to be made exclusively by the trial court and cannot be delegated.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including DW v. State

Relies on 371 So. 2d 196 - McClure v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-12-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 2011

13 state decisions

601986199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and John T. Kilcrease, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Theda R. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

¶3SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.

¶4Defendant Mitchell M. Mansell was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. In addition to sentencing the defendant to three years' imprisonment, the court ordered him to make restitution.

¶5The court based the restitution amount on a presentence investigation report prepared by the Florida Parole and Probation Commission. The defendant objected to the amount and a hearing was held in which the trial judge awarded the amount of $2,871.40 as recommended by the presentence investigation report. We agree with the defendant that the court erred.

¶6The amount of restitution is a determination to be made exclusively by the trial court and cannot be delegated. McClure v. State, 371 So.2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). By relying solely on the presentence investigation report, the trial court improperly delegated its exclusive responsibility. McClure.

¶7Accordingly, we vacate the restitution order and remand for the imposition of restitution to be determined by the trial court. On remand, the state will have the burden of demonstrating the amount of loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense in accordance with section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1985).

¶8RYDER and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

/498/so2d/604 · .json · Public domain