ALFREDO RAMIREZ BAUTISTA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1992-06-17
No. 91-02455
ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.
600 So. 2d 1255 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1992) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that while the defendant waived objection to restitution, the amount ordered must be within his ability to pay.


Facts & Procedural History

Defendant was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident and agreed to pay restitution. At the hearing, he objected to the amount, citing his inabi…

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.


Opinion of the Court
LEHAN, Acting Chief Judge.

LEHAN, Acting Chief Judge.

Defendant appeals the order requiring him to pay $123,971.53 restitution upon his conviction for leaving the scene of an automobile accident with injuries. He challenges the propriety of any restitution under the circumstances of this case and also contends the trial court failed to consider his ability to pay $123,971.53. We reverse.

As part of a negotiated plea, defendant agreed to pay restitution, reserving his right to a hearing to determine the amount. Because of his agreement, he has waived any objection to the propriety of restitution. See Ferris v. State, 558 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Pollock v. Bryson, 450 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). However, at the restitution hearing defendant effectively objected to the amount of restitution on the basis that he did not have the ability to pay. According to the evidence, he supported four people with the wages he earned picking tomatoes.

We strike the amount of restitution and remand so that the trial court may order restitution in an amount which is reasonably within the defendant’s present or potential future ability to pay. See Medina v. State, 591 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); § 775.089(6), Fla.Stat. (1991). See also Peters v. State, 555 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (condition of probation should not be impossible to perform).

ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Therrien v. State, 637 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
    …present such an issue. Specifically, section 775.089(6) requires the judge to consider the “present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents,” as well as other relevant factors. Bautista v. State, 600 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Cogdell v. State, 547 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Ballance v. State, 447 So. 2d 974, 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); M.A.R. v. State, 433 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 441 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1983). The defendant must then esta…
  • Blaine Crosby and Scott Crosby v. State, 637 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
    …nts have waived any argument concerning restitution because they agreed to pay at the plea hearing. This agreement did waive any argument as to the propriety of restitution, and as to the minimum amount to be paid, $1,000.00 each. Bautista v. State, 600 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). At the plea hearings, however, the appellants informed the court they were challenging the number of cattle the state claimed were stolen, as well as their ability to pay. They again raised these arguments at the restitution hear…
  • Deangelus v. State, 614 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
    …lant demonstrated that she has no present nor potential future financial resources to pay the $95,172.23 in restitution ordered by the trial court. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat. (1989); Boss v. State, 613 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Bautista v. State, 600 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Medina v. State, 591 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). We strike the amount of restitution and remand for the trial court to determine a reasonable amount of restitution within the appellant’s ability to pay. Affirmed in part,…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw