2025-1747•Allen Christopher Jones v. State of Florida
Texto completo
D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL O F T HE STATE OF F LORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT ALLEN CHRISTOPHER JONES, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D2025-1747 [May 6, 2026] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; William Loy Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 432024001297CFAXMX. Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph Mollica, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM . Appellant challenges, in one issue, the trial court’s determination of restitution, claiming that a jury must decide the restitution amount. That argument lacks merit. See, e.g., State v. Tomasheski, 168 So. 3d 248, 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (citing J.O.S. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1061, 1064 (Fla. 1997) (“[Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes] ‘creates the significant relationship test.’”). Further, section 775.089(7) states that “[a]ny dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence.” § 775.089(7)(c), Fla. Stat. (2024) (emphasis added). All other issues are affirmed without discussion. Affirmed. LEVINE , F ORST and S HEPHERD, JJ., concur. * * *
2 Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.
1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.
OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT ALLEN CHRISTOPHER JONES, Appellant, Vv. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D2025-1747 [May 6, 2026] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; William Loy Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 432024001297CFAXMX. Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph Mollica, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant challenges, in one issue, the trial court’s determination of restitution, claiming that a jury must decide the restitution amount. That argument lacks merit. See, e.g., State v. Tomasheski, 168 So. 3d 248, 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (citing J.O.S. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1061, 1064 (Fla. 1997) (“[Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes] ‘creates the significant relationship test.”). Further, section 775.089(7) states that “[a]ny dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence.” § 775.089(7)(c), Fla. Stat. (2024) (emphasis added). All other issues are affirmed without discussion. Affirmed. LEVINE, FORST and SHEPHERD, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.
Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.