Gilford v. State, 85-753

Decision Date26 March 1986
Docket NumberNo. 85-753,85-753
Citation487 So.2d 53,11 Fla. L. Weekly 264
Parties11 Fla. L. Weekly 264, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 588, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 747 Robert GILFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Douglas P. Chanco, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Krauss, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to two years community control on October 29, 1984. As part of his sentence, appellant was required to pay $20 per month in restitution in an amount to be determined by his probation officer.

An affidavit alleging violation of community control was executed on December 26, 1984. On March 8, 1985, community control was revoked and appellant was sentenced to thirty months incarceration and ordered to pay $15 to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund and $2 in court costs. He was also ordered to make restitution pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1983).

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing restitution and in requiring him to pay court costs and make payment to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund as a part of his sentence without affording him notice or an opportunity to be heard.

Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (Supp.1984) provides that advance notice is no longer required before imposing restitution. Gilmore v. State, 479 So.2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). However, the controlling statute is that which is in effect at the time of the commission of the crime, rather than at the time of sentencing. Ellis v. State, 298 So.2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 298 So.2d 411 (Fla.1974).

In the instant case, appellant committed the crime before the effective date of the amendment to section 775.089, which was October 1, 1984. Chapter 84-363, section 17, Laws of Florida. Therefore, section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1983) was still in effect and requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before restitution can be imposed. Gibbons v. State, 479 So.2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Harris v. State, 452 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Appellee argues that appellant was not entitled to notice and a hearing before imposition of restitution on revocation of community control since restitution was initially ordered as a condition of appellant's community control and could, therefore, properly be applied to his sentence for violation of community control.

Without addressing the validity of appellee's argument, we note that it was error for the trial court, in its order...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Reynolds v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 5, 1992
    ...to advance notice before the trial court imposed restitution. See Gaskin v. State, 513 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Gilford v. State, 487 So.2d 53 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1986). The trial court agreed to provide a restitution hearing, as timely requested by defense counsel, but none was In Johnson......
  • Masslieno v. State, BM-16
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 8, 1986
    ...officer. Hamm v. State, 403 So.2d 1155, 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Denson v. State, 493 So.2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Gilford v. State, 487 So.2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Cisneros v. State, 422 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3rd DCA Accordingly, on the basis of this error, we are required to reverse that por......
  • State v. Battle, 94-00915
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 1995
    ...(Fla.1976). The controlling statute for punishment is the statute in effect at the time of the commission of the crime. Gilford v. State, 487 So.2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Thus, the trial court was required to sentence based on section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1993) (see note followin......
  • Scurry v. State, 85-1396
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 25, 1986
    ...of 1984, therefore the 1983 version of section 775.089, which requires notice and hearing, applies to this case. See Gilford v. State, 487 So.2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Likewise, the court erred by imposing fees and costs under sections 960.20 and 943.25(4). Appellant had been declared indig......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT