In the Interest of H.S. v. State
In the Interest of H.S. v. State
Opinion of the Court
The appellant, after pleading nolo conten-dere to the charge of burglary of a dwelling, challenges a subsequent trial court order directing her to pay $7,500 in restitution.
The amount of restitution ordered to be paid for a native American ceremonial pipe which was taken is not supported by the evidence. We accordingly reverse and remand for another hearing to determine the amount of restitution to be ordered for this item. In all other respects, the order on appeal is affirmed.
Reversed in part and remanded.
. Appellant’s liability was joint and several with that of two co-defendants. See Wilson v. State, 640 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) and Teasley v. State, 640 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.