LEON GASKIN, 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.
Appellant Leon Gaskin appealed a portion of his grand theft sentence challenging a restitution order of $9,921.72 and court costs totaling $223. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the restitution and cost assessments, finding the trial court failed to comply with statutory requirements regarding consideration of financial circumstances and procedural due process.
The trial court's orders for restitution and the three categories of court costs must be reversed. On remand, the court must afford Gaskin full and fair opportunity to demonstrate his financial circumstances before ordering restitution under Section 775.089(6), provide notice and opportunity to object to costs under Sections 960.20 and 943.25, and conduct a hearing on indigency regarding costs under Section 27.3455 before resentencing.
[1] A trial court must consider a defendant's financial resources and those of his dependents before ordering restitution pursuant to Section 775.089, Florida Statutes.
[2] A defendant must be given a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate his financial circumstances before a court orders payment of restitution.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court failed to follow the requirements of Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes, to consider the financial resources of appellant and his dependents”
Establishes that the trial court's failure to consider the defendant's financial circumstances was error requiring reversal of the restitution order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGaskin was found indigent at his first appearance and appointed a public defender. He pled guilty to grand theft and was placed on five years of proba…
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 Indigency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the portion of his sentence for grand theft in which the trial court ordered him to make restitution of $9,921.72 pursuant to Section 775.089, Florida Statutes. He also appeals the imposition of court costs pursuant to Sections 960.20, 943.25, and 27.3455, Florida Statutes, in the amount of $20, $3, and $200 respectively. We reverse the parts of the final judgment ordering payment of restitution and assessing these additional court costs.
The trial court found that appellant was indigent at his first appearance hearing and appointed a public defender to represent him. After appellant pled guilty to grand theft, the court placed him on five years of probation. As a condition of that probation, the trial judge ordered appellant to pay the above-mentioned restitution. We agree with the state that a defendant is not entitled to advance notice before the court imposes restitution under Section 775.089, Florida Statutes. Gilmore v. State, 479 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). However, in the case below, the trial court failed to follow the requirements of Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes, to consider the financial resources of appellant and his dependents. Pettway v. State, 502 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The public defender tried to question the imposition of restitution, but the trial judge foreclosed any discussion and pronounced sentence. On remand, the trial court should give appellant a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate his financial circumstances before ordering payment of restitution.
As to the costs imposed under Sections 960.20 and 943.25, Florida Statues, the trial court erred by not giving appellant adequate notice of such assessments and the opportunity to object thereto. On remand, after compliance with due process requirements, the court may impose these costs without regard to appellant’s indigen-cy. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984).
Likewise, the trial court imposed costs under Section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), without affording appellant notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue of his indigency, and the cause must be remanded for resentencing after notice and hearing. Riddell v. State, 509 So. 2d 956, 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), Vogtsberger v. State, 502 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), Harris v. State, 498 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), and Lawton v. State, 492 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Upon remand, appellant will be resentenced under amended Section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.). Riddell, supra; Brown v. State, 508 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Jones v. State, 507 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Harris, supra.
REVERSED in part and REMANDED for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.
BOOTH and WENTWORTH, JJ., and BEN C. WILLIS (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1988)…essed by this Court. See Lawton v. State, 492 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (question certified but not brought to this Court for review). Several district courts have applied the rationale of Jenkins to section 27.3445 costs. E.g. Gaskin v. State, 513 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Canale v. State, 509 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Harris v. State, 507 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We agree that due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to assessment of costs under section 27.34…
-
Moore v. State, 530 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…tions 960.20, 943.-25, and 27.3455, the state must provide a defendant with adequate notice and an opportunity to object to the assessment. Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1988); Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947, 950 (Fla. 1984); Gaskin v. State, 513 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Riddell v. State, 509 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Harris v. State, 498 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Furthermore, the imposition of such costs may be challenged even though no objection was raised in the trial court. Harr…
-
Darrin Bellinger v. State, 514 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…anded for resentencing under amended section 27.-3455, Florida Statutes (Supp.1986), after appellant is given notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue of his indigency. Carter v. State, 513 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Gaskins v. State, 513 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Riddell v. State, 509 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Appellant also was assessed costs of $20.00 pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes, and $2.00 pursuant to section 943.25(4), Florida Statutes. Appellant similarly sho…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Bethune v. State, 492 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Lawton v. State, 492 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Alphonso Harris v. State, 498 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- McLAIN v. Palm Beach Cnty., 479 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Brown v. State, 508 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Jones v. State, 507 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Riddell v. State, 509 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Pettway v. State, 502 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Cathern "Cathy" Vogtsberger v. State, 502 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)