Barclay v. State

Following our decision in Barclay v. State, 629 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), this matter recurred in the trial court. Defendant was not present but was represented by counsel, an assistant state attorney was also present. There was some confusion over what this court’s mandate required. Defendant’s counsel stated that the case had been sent back on the restitution issue and that a hearing would be appropriate. Whereupon, the trial court stated:

Court: Seems like a waste of taxpayers dollars to bring him back just to find out that he can’t pay the restitution.

Marder: It certainly sounds that…