Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

691 So. 2d 41

Owens v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1997-04-04

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 2001

2 state decisions

Relies on 657 So. 2d 1161 - State v. Pennington · 679 So. 2d 340 - Bowers v. State · Rhoden v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-04-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1In this belated appeal from appellant’s judgment and sentence following his plea of guilty, we affirm without discussion the third issue raised by appellant.

¶2In regard to the first issue raised, appellant argues and the state properly concedes that the restitution order must be reversed because appellant was not provided notice and an opportunity to be heard nor was an evidentiary basis for the amount established. Bowers v. State, 679 So.2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Rhoden v. State, 622 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(reversing restitution order entered without oral pronouncement of restitution or opportunity for defendant to be heard on amount assessed); Palag v. State, 622 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(reversing restitution order where amount of restitution never mentioned and record silent with regard to basis for determining restitution amount). We remand for procedures in accordance with section 775.089, Florida Statutes.

¶3We affirm as to appellant’s claim of entitlement to withdraw his plea based on the court’s failure to formally accept the plea. Appellant never moved to withdraw his plea. The issue, therefore, is not preserved. Demartine v. State, 647 So.2d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA), appeal dismissed, 657 So.2d 1162 (Fla.1995).

¶4In all other respects appellant’s judgment and sentence are affirmed. Accordingly, the cause is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

MINER, ALLEN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
/691/so2d/41 · .json · Public domain