midpage

Weckerle v. StateWeckerle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida
Apr 3, 1991
89-3249
Versions:579 So. 2d 742
1991 WL 44961

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant/cross appellee.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and John Tiedemann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee/cross appellant.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant‘s conviction and sentence. As part of the sentence, appellant was given a period of probation conditioned, inter alia, on his payment “for all counseling expenses incurred by the victim, as directed by your Probation Officer.”

Because counseling had not been completed, we find no abuse of discretion in failing to fix the amount of restitution, McCaskill v. State, 520 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), assuming that, at a future appropriate time, and upon application, the trial court will determine the amount of restitution to be paid pursuant to section 948.03(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989). The duty may not be delegated. With this understanding of the sentencing conditions, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Weckerle v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Apr 3, 1991
Citations: 579 So. 2d 742; 1991 WL 44961; 89-3249
Docket Number: 89-3249
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
Log In