Rory Alexander Hunt v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledOctober 1, 2026
Docket3D2025-1493
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 1, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1493
Lower Tribunal No. 25-2608
________________
Rory Alexander Hunt,
Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Marcus
Bach Armas, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Amy Lynn Weber, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Liz Marie Feliz, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and REBULL, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 775.089(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2026) (Florida law mandates
that a court order a defendant to make restitution “unless it finds clear and
compelling reasons not to order such restitution.”); § 775.089(7)(c), Fla. Stat.
(2026) (Court may consider hearsay evidence to determine the amount or
type of restitution provided it finds the hearsay evidence has a minimal indicia
of reliability); See Quintero v. State, 394 So. 3d 228, 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
(citations omitted) (“Where restitution is part of a plea bargain . . . it should
be liberally construed in favor of making the victim whole,” and “where a plea
agreement leaves the amount of restitution to the trial court's discretion,
reversal is not warranted absent a clear showing that the trial court abused
its discretion.”).
Upon the record presented, we find no fundamental error or
deprivation of due process, but we caution the trial court of the
importance of maintaining impartiality and the appearance of
impartiality. A trial court may properly question witnesses “when
required by the interests of justice.” § 90.615(2), Fla. Stat. (2015).
Such questioning may be appropriate, in the court's discretion,
to seek clarification of an issue and in an effort to ascertain the
truth. R.O. v. State, 46 So. 3d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). However,
a trial judge must ensure that he or she does not become an
active participant or an advocate in the proceedings and should
not by words or actions make it “appear that his neutrality is
departing from the center.” Riddle v. State, 755 So. 2d 771, 773
(Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
R.W. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 189 So. 3d 978, 980 (Fla. 3d DCA
2016).
2