Cintron v. State

Full title: Walter CINTRON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Date published: Nov 13, 2013

125 So. 3d 375 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

Opinion

No. 3D12–90.

2013-11-13

Walter CINTRON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami–Dade County, Sarah I. Zabel, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Nikole Hiciano, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami–Dade County, Sarah I. Zabel, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Nikole Hiciano, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before ROTHENBERG, SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the State of Florida that appellant Walter Cintron is entitled to a new restitution hearing because over defense counsel's objection, the trial court relied exclusively on hearsay when it imposed restitution. See J.L. v. State, 684 So.2d 883, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that the State cannot rely on hearsay testimony when the defense properly objects to its introduction, when proving the amount of loss attributable to stolen property). Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for a new evidentiary hearing on restitution. We affirm in all other respects.

Reversed and remanded.