CARLA GLADFELTER, 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 setting the amount of restitution after the sixty-day period is permissible if the requirement to pay restitution was included in the original sentence. However, a scrivener's error in the probation term requires correction.
Carla Gladfelter was sentenced to imprisonment and probation for DUI causing serious bodily injury, with restitution to be determined. Approximately f…
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 Probation Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Carla Gladfelter appeals an Order of Modification of Probation entered approximately fifteen months after the entry of the original sentence. On August 23, 1990, Ms. Gladfelter was sentenced to three years imprisonment to be followed by two years probation for DUI causing serious bodily injury. The special conditions of the probation order included restitution to the victim in an amount “to be determined.” The modification order entered November 13, 1991, provided, inter alia, that appellant pay restitution in the total amount of $5896.71. We affirm the Order of Modification, except as noted below.
Appellant first contends it was error for the trial court to modify the August 23, 1990, sentence by setting the amount of restitution more than sixty days after the sentence was imposed. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(b). We have repeatedly held, however, that as long as the requirement to pay restitution is included in the sentence, setting the actual amount of restitution, even beyond sixty days from the sentence, is permissible. Savory v. State, 600 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), approved in part, corrected on other grounds Savory v. State, 600 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); In the Interest of B.M., 580 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Stanley v. State, 580 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We affirm as to this point, and to the extent we are in conflict with State v. Martin, 577 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, State v. Martin, 587 So. 2d 1329 (Fla.1991), we note such conflict.
Appellant’s second point is that the Order of Modification is erroneous in providing a term of probation of three years, when the original sentence provided for a two-year term of probation. Appel-lee/state agrees this was a scrivener’s error, and we therefore reverse and remand for correction of this portion of the Order of Modification.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.
HERSEY, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gladfelter v. State, 618 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1993)…GRIMES, Justice. We review Gladfelter v. State, 604 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), because of its conflict with State v. Martin, 577 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 587 So. 2d 1329 (Fla.1991). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. Gladfelter pled guilty t…
-
Langston v. State, 616 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. Appellant raises three points on appeal. The first, controlled by Gladfelter v. State, 604 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), juris, accepted, 613 So. 2d 4 (Fla.1993), does not establish error. Nevertheless, we find appellant’s second and third points to have merit; therefore, we reverse and remand with direction because of the trial court’s error in…
-
Glispy v. State, 608 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Gladfelter v. State, 604 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and LETTS and POLEN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Martin, 577 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- In the Interest of B.M., 580 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Scott v. State, 600 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Savory v. State, 600 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Henry v. State, 580 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Stanley v. State, 580 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)