Legal Opinion

Taylor v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 24, 1996No. 95-0973PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

As the state concedes, the order requiring appellant to pay $112 in restitution to the Indian County Sheriffs Office must be reversed for two reasons. First, appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere based in part on the agreement that no restitution would be imposed. See Hunt v. State, 613 So.2d 893 (Fla.1992). Additionally, for purposes of restitution, a police agency does not meet the definition of a “victim.” § 775.089, Fla.Stat. (1995); Staudt v. State, 616 So.2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Bain v. State, 559 So.2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Accordingly, this case is reversed with…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hunt v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1992
  2. Staudt v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993
  3. Bain v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Montina v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API