Shields v. State, 549 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). · Go Syfert
Shields v. State, 549 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Cord v. Cord (fladistctapp, 2000-02-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Cord v. Cord (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See 549 So.2d at 247 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Roger Allen SHIELDS
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 88-02964.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Sep 27, 1989.
549 So. 2d 246
1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5322
1989 WL 112133
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and T. Orin Lee, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant., Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Dell H. Edwards, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Altenbernd, Boardman, Edward, Ret, Ryder.
Published
ALTENBERND, Judge.

Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to the charge of arson in exchange for a guidelines sentence, which was to include probation. At sentencing and without objection, the trial court included restitution to the victims as a condition of probation. The amount of restitution was to be determined at a later hearing. After appellant filed his notice of appeal and without a hearing, the trial court entered an order which set the amount of restitution. Appellant contends this was error, citing section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1987); Amison v. State, 504 So.2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (trial court erred in imposing restitution without prior determination as to appellant’s ability to pay and consideration of other criteria of section 775.089(6)); Loeb v. State, 387 So.2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (trial court may not modify an order while that order is being appealed); and State v. Diets, 517 So.2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA), aff'd on other grounds, 532 So.2d 1271 (Fla.1988) (failure to object to order requiring appellant to pay restitution did not preclude appellate review where trial court did not determine the amount of restitution; cause remanded for hearing to make that determination). The state concedes error.

Accordingly, we reverse that part of appellant’s probation order regarding restitution, and remand for a hearing in accordance with section 775.089(6).

Reversed in part and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

RYDER, A.C.J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.