Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

535 So. 2d 721

535 So.2d 721

13 Fla.L.Weekly 2717

Gray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 14, 1988

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1988-12-14

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1995

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[m]ake restitution as determined by Probation and Parole [Services].”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 598 So. 2d 188 - Reynolds v. State

Relies on 520 So. 2d 664 - McCaskill v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1988-12-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Appellant was found guilty by jury of grand theft of the second degree under Section 812.014(2)(b)(l), Florida Statutes (1985), and was sentenced to a split sentence with a condition of the probationary portion of the sentence that he “make restitution as directed by Probation and Parole.” At sentencing on the above case, appellant pled nolo contendere to another charge of grand theft of the second degree for which he was adjudicated guilty and placed on probation for five years consecutive to the first sentence. The same condition of restitution as that mentioned above was imposed with respect to the second case.

¶2We affirm the judgment and sentence as to the first case and the judgment as to the second. However, it was improper for the trial court to delegate to “Probation and *722Parole” issues regarding restitution. McCaskill v. State, 520 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). We, therefore, remand to the trial court for proceedings to determine issues regarding restitution and for appropriate amendment of the probation orders with respect to restitution.

¶3Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

JOANOS, WIGGINTON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
/535/so2d/721 · .json · Public domain