Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

640 So. 2d 1239

Teasley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 11, 1994

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1994-08-11

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently August 1994

2 state decisions

Relies on Wilson v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-08-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The appellants, after pleading nolo conten-dere to burglary of a dwelling, challenge subsequent trial court orders directing Teas-ley to pay $7,500 in restitution1 and R.M.B. to pay $1,500 in restitution.2 We reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.

¶2The amount of restitution that Teasley was ordered to pay for a native American ceremonial pipe is not supported by the evidence. We accordingly reverse and remand for another hearing to determine the amount of restitution to be ordered for this item. In all other respects, the orders on appeal are affirmed.

¶3Reversed in part and remanded.

BARFIELD, MINER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

¶4. Teasley's liability was joint and several with two other co-defendants, H.S. and Gary Wilson. See Wilson v. State, 640 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) and H.S. v. State, 640 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

¶5. R.M.B.’s liability was joint and several with co-defendant T.F.F.

/640/so2d/1239 · .json · Public domain