From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

G.A.Z. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 7, 1995
657 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Opinion

No. 94-01273.

July 7, 1995.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Chet A. Tharpe, J.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John S. Lynch, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Anne Y. Swing, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


We affirm the amount ordered for restitution because there was sufficient competent evidence to find (1) that the appellant took the signet ring the victim inherited from her father during the burglary for which he was adjudicated delinquent and (2) the ring's replacement value. However, we strike that part of the order delegating the responsibility for setting the terms and conditions of the payment of the restitution. Only the trial court may set such terms. Denson v. State, 493 So.2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); McDonald v. State, 478 So.2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

We remand for further proceedings so the trial court may set the terms and conditions of repayment.

THREADGILL, C.J., and DANAHY and QUINCE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

G.A.Z. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 7, 1995
657 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Case details for

G.A.Z. v. State

Case Details

Full title:G.A.Z., APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jul 7, 1995

Citations

657 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Citing Cases

A.J. v. State

On resentencing, we note that the trial court may not delegate the responsibility for setting the terms and…