O.L. v. State, 85-1658
| Decision Date | 18 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1658,85-1658 |
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2418,497 So.2d 971 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2418 O.L., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and NESBITT, JJ.
O.L. appeals from an order, issued pursuant to an adjudication of delinquency, which requires that he make restitution in the amount of $300 for damage he caused. The order further provides that the parties are to agree on the payment schedule. We affirm the order insofar as it requires restitution in the amount of $300 but reverse that portion which permits the parties to decide on the manner of payment.
The trial court's determination that the amount of $300 is not "greater than an amount the child and his parents could reasonably be expected to pay or make" is within its discretion. § 39.11(1)(a)1, Fla.Stat. (1985). A trial court may not, however, delegate its judicial authority to the parties to determine the amount or manner of restitution. See F.R. v. State, 473 So.2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); J.J.S. v. State, 465 So.2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); T.W. v. State, 395 So.2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Since the trial court impermissibly delegated to the parties the authority to determine the manner of payment, and considering that the amount that O.L. will be required to pay per period has a bearing on the reasonableness of the total restitution scheme, cf. W.R. v. State, 462 So.2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (), we reverse the order insofar as it permits the parties to determine the restitution scheme.
Accordingly, this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.W. v. State
...restitution and the manner of payment up to the parties and counselors. See § 39.11(1)(a)1., Fla.Stat. (1989); see also O.L. v. State, 497 So.2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); W.R. v. State, 462 So.2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); T.W. v. State, 395 So.2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA Reversed and remanded. ...
-
D.G. v. State, 87-69
...his parents could be reasonably expected to pay the amount of restitution ordered, § 39.11(1), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1986); O.L. v. State, 497 So.2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); and (b) the order fails to specifically determine, as it must, the amount of restitution and the manner of payment and inste......
-
D.M. v. State, 87-2424
...the responsibility of developing "a payment schedule"; on remand, the trial court itself shall set the payment schedule. O.L. v. State, 497 So.2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). In all other respects, however, we reject the respondent's attack on the restitution provision. (1) The trial court prope......