ELMER DEAN SNELL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the order for restitution and costs.
Appellant was convicted and ordered to pay restitution and costs. The trial court did not consider appellant's financial resources before ordering res…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Procedural Change cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s conviction. However, we reverse the order imposing costs against appellant and ordering him to make restitution. The trial court failed to consider the financial resources of the appellant, the financial needs and earning ability of the appellant and his dependents, and other such factors pursuant to Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1985), before ordering him to pay restitution. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a hearing with notice.
Moreover, the costs imposed against appellant were based upon Section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), which was enacted after the offenses were committed by appellant. We have held that this section cannot be applied retroactively. See Sig-norelli v. State, 491 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Therefore, we reverse the order imposing costs and again certify to the Supreme Court of Florida as being of great public importance the question:
DOES THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 27.3455, FLORIDA STATUTES (1985), TO CRIMES COMMITTED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE STATUTE VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, OR DOES THE STATUTE MERELY EFFECT A PROCEDURAL CHANGE AS IS PERMITTED UNDER STATE V. JACKSON, 478 SO.2D 1054 (FLA.1985)?
Reversed and remanded as to restitution; reversed as to costs.
DELL, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 517 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…that portion of the sentence ordering restitution was an error and reverse. Pursuant to section 775.089(6), (7), Florida Statutes (1985) the trial court must consider the defendant’s financial resources. As this court concluded in Snell v. State, 502 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. dismissed, 509 So. 2d 1119 (Fla.1987), a defendant is entitled to a hearing prior to the imposition of restitution. See also Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984), and Grimes v. State, 499 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986…
-
Cheatham v. State, 593 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…mine the defendant’s financial circumstances as was the case in Dominique v. State, 590 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Oliverio v. State, 583 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Mounds v. State, 526 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); and Snell v. State, 502 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. dismissed, 509 So. 2d 1119 (1987). In the instant case, the record reflects the trial court’s consideration of the [*272] defendant’s ability to pay restitution, albeit limited in scope. We are unwilling to impose the requireme…
-
Young v. State, 601 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…e, and that the court reconsider the imposition of restitution and the amount thereof in accordance with this opinion. GUNTHER, J., concurs. WARNER, J., dissents with opinion. . Pellot v. State, 582 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Snell v. State, 502 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Thomas v. State, 517 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Signorelli v. State, 491 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)