Miller v. State, 80-671
| Decision Date | 09 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-671,80-671 |
| Citation | 407 So.2d 959 |
| Parties | Richard MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Mark Horn and Sharon Stedman, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted on five counts of violating Section 713.34, Florida Statutes (1979), and sentenced to six months incarceration followed by a total of fourteen and one-half years of probation. One of the conditions of probation was that restitution be made to the various victims of his defalcations, amounting to over $30,000. We have considered all of appellant's points on appeal and find no error demonstrated except as to the restitution provision of the order of probation.
Ordinarily a defendant is not required to object to conditions of probation in order to preserve them for appellate review. Coulson v. State, 342 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). The right to appeal an order of probation is found in Section 924.06(2), Florida Statutes (1979), and in Florida Appellate Rule 9.140(b)(1)(B). It is noteworthy that none of the judicial acts which are appealable under the statute or the rule requires an objection in the trial court in order to preserve the right to appellate review.
Regardless of the general rule regarding objections to probation conditions, a condition requiring restitution is treated somewhat differently in that notice and an opportunity to be heard must be given a defendant before restitution can be mandated. Fresneda v. State, 347 So.2d 1021 (Fla.1977). Following Fresneda the cases have consistently required such notice. However, recognizing that in many cases involving restitution there will be no controversy about the amount thereof and thus no compelling reason for notice, the Second District Court of Appeal has suggested a modified Fresneda rule, which we believe recognizes the practicalities of the situation and adequately protects the defendant. In Goodson v. State, 400 So.2d 791, 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), that court stated:
The important objective of notice is to afford a defendant a meaningful opportunity to be heard before being required to pay money to the victim of his offense. In many cases a defendant will have no objection to restitution being imposed as one of the conditions of his probation. In these instances the court's failure to provide notice should not make the order of restitution subject to reversal. Where, however, a defendant has not been furnished prior notice, and he objects to the court requiring restitution as a condition of his probation, he must be given an opportunity to be heard. This, of course, carries with it a requirement that the defendant be given a reasonable time to prepare.
Accordingly, we hold that a trial judge may notify the defendant prior to the sentencing hearing that restitution is a possibility. If he does so, and affords the defendant an opportunity to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larson v. State
...1984), review denied, 464 So.2d 556 (Fla.1985). The same logic applies equally to illegal conditions of probation. Miller v. State, 407 So.2d 959, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); DiOrio v. State, 359 So.2d 45, 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), receded from on other grounds, Goodson v. State, 400 So.2d 791 (F......
-
Miller v. Norvell
...in county jail with fourteen-and-one-half years' probation. Appellant's convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Miller v. State, 407 So.2d 959 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1981). Appellant filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in United States District Court for the Southern District of F......
-
Argote v. State, 83-205
...since the defendant was given an opportunity to be heard on the amount of restitution determined to be owing, see Miller v. State, 407 So.2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Goodson v. State, 400 So.2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), and objected not to the amount, but to the propriety of the court requiri......
-
Leach v. State, 92-0162
...He did not object to the imposition of costs based on his inability to pay. See Sec. 939.01(6), Fla.Stat. (1991); Miller v. State, 407 So.2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). DELL and POLEN, JJ., and SEIDLIN, LARRY, Associate Judge, concur. ...