MICHAEL NORDGREN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. After having been convicted of manslaughter (driving automobile while intoxicated), as part of his sentence, the appellant was ordered to pay a total of ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars in restitution. At the hearing held to determine the mode and manner of payment, the trial judge ordered monthly installments of three hundred ($300.00) dollars. Appellant appeals, arguing the amount of the installments is excessive.
Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1987), authorizes a court to consider a defendant’s earning ability as well as other factors deemed appropriate when determining the manner and mode of restitution payments.
The apparently able-bodied appellant when employed earned approximately ten to eleven thousand ($10,000.00-$11,000.00) dollars a year on a part-time basis.
We affirm the trial court’s findings that the appellant had the ability to earn sufficient funds to pay the ordered monthly restitution payment and fulfill his own financial needs. See DeConingh v. State, 433 So. 2d 501, 504 (Fla.1983).
DELL, GUNTHER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bowers v. State, 596 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…e. The amount of restitution imposed upon appellant as a condition of his probation is affirmed as a proper exercise of discretion. Spivey v. State, 531 So. 2d 965 (Fla.1988); Butts v. State, 575 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Nordgren v. State, 538 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The trial court incorrectly attempted, however, to delegate to appellant’s probation officer the responsibility of directing the payment of restitution. Such direction is ineffectual and must be struck. Smith v. State, 589 So.…
Authorities Cited
- DeCONINGH v. State, 433 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1983)