Summary
reversing order imposing restitution where appellant objected to amount of restitution and trial court initially stated it would permit a restitution hearing but failed to do so
Summary of this case from State v. DixonOpinion
No. 92-00374.
June 23, 1993.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Susan Sexton, J.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Karen K. Purdy, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Erica M. Raffel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
The appellant, Thomas Gardipee, appeals his judgments and sentences for attempted second-degree murder and armed trespass. We affirm, except for the order imposing restitution. At sentencing, the appellant objected to the amount of restitution being requested by the state. The trial court stated that the appellant would be permitted a restitution hearing; however, the restitution hearing was never held. The trial court imposed restitution as a condition of probation at sentencing with the amount to be determined at a later date. The trial court subsequently entered a restitution order for $54,419.87. This amount was based upon bills submitted by the victim at the sentencing hearing.
We reverse the order imposing restitution and remand for a restitution hearing. See Reynolds v. State, 598 So.2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The appellant has the right to be present at the hearing.
Affirmed; remanded for hearing.
FRANK, C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.