WAYNE ALLEN JARAWDI, 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 held that restitution can be ordered even if the victim received insurance, but the trial court must consider the defendant's ability to pay.
Following convictions for grand theft and failure to appear, the trial court ordered restitution. The defendant appealed, arguing the victim was compe…
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 Ability To Pay Restitution cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
At Jarawdi’s sentencing hearing following his convictions for grand theft and failure to appear, the trial court imposed restitution to the victim in the amount of $94,- 000.- Jarawdi appeals from the order of restitution. We reverse.
Jarawdi first argues that the trial court erred in ordering restitution to the victim when the victim had recovered from an insurance company damages resulting from Jarawdi’s conduct. We disagree. See Amison v. State, 504 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (the insurance company is sub-rogated to the rights of the victim and restitution can be ordered for the full amount of loss irrespective of reimbursement to the victim).
However, Jarawdi correctly asserts that the trial court erred in failing to consider his ability to pay the restitution amount, as required by section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1987). We agree and remand for a proper hearing to determine Jarawdi’s ability to pay. Amison; Pettway v. State, 502 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
LEHAN, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. State, 694 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…,000 as a result of this incident. We disagree. The insurance company is subrogat-ed to the rights of the victim and restitution can be ordered for the full amount of the victim’s loss regardless of reimbursement to the victim. See Jarawdi v. State, 521 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Amison v. State, 504 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new restitution hearing in accordance with this opinion. BLUE, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur. . Section 775.089(6) -was amended, eff…
-
L.S. v. State, 593 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…y because he chose a victim with insurance is without logic. An insurance company is subrogated to the rights of a victim. Amison v. State, 504 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); see M.E.I. v. State, 525 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Jarawdi v. State, 521 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). [*298] We affirm the restitution order of $1,000 for the benefit of Sunskins, Inc., since defense counsel stated to the court that he did not have a problem with the $1,000 restitution to the corporate victim, but we quash the or…
Authorities Cited
- Amison v. State, 504 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Pettway v. State, 502 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)