LISA MARIE DEANGELUS, 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.
Appellant's conviction for driving under the influence stands, and restitution is properly imposed, but the amount of $95,172.23 is reversed because appellant established her inability to pay and must be remanded for a reasonable amount within her financial capacity.
Restitution may be imposed following a DUI conviction, but the amount must be within the defendant's ability to pay.
[1] Restitution imposed as part of a criminal sentence must be in an amount within the defendant's ability to pay, and a defendant who establishes by preponderance of the evi…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of driving under the influence after a jury trial and was ordered to pay $95,172.23 in restitution. She demonstrated she had n…
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 Proportionality Of Punishment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s order imposing restitution in the amount of $95,172.23. We affirm the order imposing restitution but reverse the amount. After a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of driving under the influence. Appellant challenges both the imposition of restitution and the amount. We find no merit to her contention that restitution was improperly imposed and we affirm that portion of the sentence imposing restitution. However, because the appellant met her burden and established by the preponderance of the evidence her inability to pay the amount of $95,172.23 we reverse the amount of restitution. The appellant 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, reversed in part, and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. State, 694 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…if the amount of loss had been proven, we would reverse because trial court erred by ordering the defendant to pay restitution in an amount beyond her ability to pay. See, e.g., Crosby v. State, 637 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Deangelus v. State, 614 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The defendant also claims that the trial court erred by ordering that restitution be paid to the victim despite testimony that the victim received an insurance payment for $9,000 as a result of this incident. We disagree. The in…
-
Blaine Crosby and Scott Crosby v. State, 637 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…erred in ordering restitution beyond the appellants’ ability to pay. Blaine’s and Scott’s testimony established they did not have present or potential future assets suffi-dent-to pay restitution in the amount of $158,750.00. See Deangelus v. State, 614 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The state contends that the appellants 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 minim…
Authorities Cited
- Boss v. State, 613 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Medina v. State, 591 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Brookwood-Jackson Cnty. Convalescent Ctr. & Brookwood-Walton Cnty. Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 591 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Bautista v. State, 600 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)