Dependency Law Finder

Florida's dependency statutes, court rules and DCF operating procedures, with the appellate opinions that apply them

data.robertlathamesq.org · All tools

Before you use this site

This site aggregates legal authorities from a variety of public sources. It is AI and human reviewed. Text processing errors can occur. Always check the information here against the official linked source.

This site is publicly available. Use for general research only. Do not submit confidential or identifiable case information.

I don't agree: show the official sources

Briggs v. State647 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) · 1D93-3533

Court
1st DCA
Decided
1994-06-29
Law cited
§ 39.059(7)
On CourtListener
647 So.2d 182 (1994)

Patrick J. BRIGGS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 93-3533.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 29, 1994.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Phil Patterson, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Thomas Falkinburg and Amelia L. Beisner, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant committed an aggravated battery when he was 17 years old. By the time he was sentenced, the defendant was already 19, and the trial court decided to impose adult sanctions. On appeal, the defendant challenges the imposition of adult sanctions as well as his responsibility for restitution to be paid "as directed by your probation officer."

We affirm the imposition of adult sanctions, finding that the trial court's written order satisfies the requirements of section 39.059(7), Florida Statutes (1993). Concerning restitution, however, it was improper for the trial court to delegate to the probation officer the responsibility for fashioning a payment plan. See Thomas v. State, 635 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); White v. State, 606 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Consequently, we remand the case for further proceedings so that the trial court may fashion a plan for payment of restitution.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.

MINER, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Opinion text: CourtListener, Free Law Project. Not an official reporter; check the court's version before citing.