Bell v. State
Bell v. State
535 So. 2d 645; 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2748; 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5569; 1988 WL 133933
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Bell v. State
Opinion of the Court
Since appellant did not object to the trial court’s requirement that he pay restitution, he has waived that issue on appeal.
The trial judge’s oral pronouncement of sentence and his sentencing order adopt the specific restitution recommendations found in appellant’s presentence investigation report. This is not the sort of unlawful delegation of judicial responsibility to a probation officer that required reversal in Hamrick v. State, 532 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
The sentencing order is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.