MATTHEW THOMAS, 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.
Defendant's conviction for aggravated battery was affirmed, but the restitution order of up to $10,000 was reversed because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate hearing on the defendant's financial resources as required by statute.
A trial court must conduct an adequate hearing on a defendant's financial resources before imposing restitution under Florida Statutes section 775.089(6), (7).
[1] A defendant is entitled to a hearing on financial resources prior to imposition of restitution, and the trial court must consider the defendant's financial ability under…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was convicted of aggravated battery after attacking a victim with a machete and was sentenced to restitution of up to $10,000.…
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 Financial Resources cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
The defendant was found guilty of aggravated battery after mounting a savage attack on the victim with a machete. Included in the sentence meted out by the judge was an order requiring restitution of up to $10,000. We agree that 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). In the case at bar, there simply was no adequate hearing on the question of his financial resources. The state argues that defense counsel did not raise an objection based on lack of financial ability. Consequently, it is urged that the error, if any, is waived. An examination of the record here convinces us that sufficient objection was made and the matter preserved for review.
We conclude that the state failed to meet its burden of proof and we strike that part of the sentence ordering restitution and reverse and remand for amendment in accordance herewith.
REVERSE AND REMANDED.
ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Green v. State, 571 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…o inquire into Green’s ability to pay and the State failed to present any evidence of the amount of the victim’s medical bills. Howren v. State, 510 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Amison v. State, 504 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Thomas v. State, 517 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Dolan v. State, 468 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The restitution order is reversed by this court and remanded to the trial court with instructions to conduct a new hearing at which the State should be required to present evide…
-
Cheatham v. State, 593 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…mount of the loss sustained, and upon the defendant, the burden of demonstrating his financial circumstances. In the instant case the state did not fail to meet its burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss, as was the case in Thomas v. State, 517 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Rather, the state presented the court with records demonstrating the amount paid for care services performed and property loss and damage. Nor can it be concluded from the record on appeal that the trial court failed to hold a…
-
Oropesa v. State, 555 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…to make restitution for Mrs. Rivers’ injury. We entirely agree with the defendants’ claim that it was error to order them to make restitution without first conducting an inquiry into each defendant’s ability to pay restitution. See Thomas v. State, 517 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (inadequacy of hearing on defendant’s financial resources warranted reversal of restitution order); Amison v. State, 504 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (trial court erred in imposing costs without prior consideration of defendant’…
Previewing 3 of 12 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)
- Grimes v. State, 499 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Lewis v. State, 502 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Snell v. State, 502 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)