Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

579 So. 2d 742

Docket No. 89-3249.

Weckerle v. State

David Blair WECKERLE, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Cross Appellant.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 3, 1991.

Rehearing Denied June 19, 1991.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1991-04-03

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 1998

9 state decisions

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

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1991-04-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*743 Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant/cross appellee.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and John Tiedemann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee/cross appellant.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We affirm appellant's conviction and sentence. As part of the sentence, appellant was given a period of probation conditioned, inter alia, on his payment "for all counseling expenses incurred by the victim, as directed by your Probation Officer."

¶5Because counseling had not been completed, we find no abuse of discretion in failing to fix the amount of restitution, McCaskill v. State,520 So.2d 664, 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), assuming that, at a future appropriate time, and upon application, the trial court will determine the amount of restitution to be paid pursuant to section 948.03(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989). The duty may not be delegated. With this understanding of the sentencing conditions, we affirm.

¶6AFFIRMED.

¶7HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS and POLEN, JJ., concur.

/579/so2d/742 · .json · Public domain