PERRY EMILE COMEAU, 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.
Perry Comeau appealed a probation condition requiring him to reimburse the Suwannee County Sheriff's Department for medical care costs incurred while he was incarcerated. The court reversed the restitution condition, finding no statutory authority in Florida law to impose such restitution for medical expenses as a probation condition.
The court held that section 901.35 does not authorize restitution for medical care expenses incurred during incarceration as a condition of probation; rather, it merely establishes an order in which medical care providers should seek reimbursement from governmental entities when a prisoner is unable to pay.
[1] A county has a duty to provide medical care for its prisoners.
[2] A statute imposing liability on a governmental entity for a prisoner's medical care does not authorize restitution for such expenses as a condition of probation.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The county, as custodian of a prisoner charged with violating a state law or county ordinance, has a duty to provide medical care for its prisoner.”
Establishes the foundational principle that counties must provide medical care to incarcerated persons.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceComeau pled guilty to second-degree murder with a firearm in a negotiated plea and received a twelve-year sentence followed by three years of probatio…
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.
JOANOS, Chief Judge.
Appellant, Perry Emile Comeau, appeals a condition of probation requiring him to pay restitution to the Suwannee County Sheriff’s Department for the cost of medical care provided to him while he was incarcerated in the county jail. We reverse.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea in which the state agreed to recommend a guideline sentence with a cap of fifteen years, to include a three-year minimum mandatory sentence for use of a firearm, appellant pled guilty to second degree murder with a firearm. The trial court imposed a twelve-year sentence, followed by a three-year probationary period. In addition to the imposition of costs and restitution for the victim's funeral expenses, appellant was ordered to pay restitution of $1,765.04 to the Sheriff's Department, as reimbursement for his medical care during his incarceration.
The record reflects that the challenged restitution represented the costs of appellant’s medical care for injuries he suffered in a fall in the shower at the county jail. Appellant’s counsel argued vigorously in opposition to requiring appellant to. pay restitution for medical care as a condition of probation. The assistant state attorney advised the trial court that the county was entitled to seek such payment as a cost, pursuant to section 901.35, Florida Statutes (1991).
Although the trial court’s tran scribed comments reflect that the court viewed the medical expense as a cost, the written probation order purports to impose restitution for the medical expense as a condition of probation. In its answer brief, the state properly concedes an absence of statutory authority for condition eleven of the trial court’s probation order. The county, as custodian of a prisoner charged with violating a state law or county ordinance, has a duty to provide medical care for its prisoner. See Metropolitan Dade County v. P.L. Dodge Foundations, Inc., 509 So. 2d 1170, 1173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Section 901.35 evinces legislative intent to impose liability for such care on a governmental entity, upon proof of the prisoner’s inability to pay. Id., at 1175.
However, the statute does not authorize restitution for the type of medical expense incurred in this case as a condition of probation. Rather, the statute sets forth the order in which the medical care provider should seek reimbursement for the expense it incurred in providing required medical care.
Accordingly, the probation order is reversed and remanded with directions to strike condition eleven, requiring appellant to pay $1,765.04 as a condition of probation. The probation order is affirmed in all other respects.
ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allen v. State, 642 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…ence- imposing a condition of probation requiring him to reimburse the [*816] Columbia County Sheriffs Department for medical expenses in the amount of $16.95. Mr. Allen seeks reversal of the restitution order under the authority of Comean v. State, 611 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), in which this court held that the county had a duty to provide medical care to a prisoner in its custody and reversed an order imposing an obligation to reimburse the sheriffs office for medical care as a condition of probation.…
-
State v. Myers, 696 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…2 Florida Statutes and in support of HRS and Cochran’s position that they should not be responsible for payment of Myers’ medical care. Rather the county is the liable party responsible for the medical care of the detained prisoner. Comeau v. State, 611 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We turn next to section 916.105(1), Florida Statutes which provides as follows: (1) It is the intent of the Legislature that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services establish, locate, and maintain separate and sec…
-
Morran v. State, 662 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…y. We strike this assessment. Although a county may seek reimbursement for medical costs under section 901.35 or section 951.032, these statutes do not authorize the trial court to impose these costs as a condition of probation. See Comeau v. State, 611 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In conclusion, we strike the investigative costs, the $2 cost, the fine and surcharge, the portion of the cost under section 27.3455(1) that exceeds the statutory maximum, and the medical costs. We affirm the remaining costs. O…
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
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. P.L. Dodge Founds., Inc., 509 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)