JACKIE G. LANGSTON, 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 the trial court erred in ordering restitution beyond the appellant's ability to pay and in basing it on written statements without a hearing.
[1] A trial court errs by ordering restitution beyond a defendant's ability to pay.
[2] A trial court must conduct a hearing to determine the amount of restitution and the credibility of witnesses regarding restitution.
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 intelligenceThe appellant was ordered to pay restitution as a condition of probation. The appellant objected to the amount and presented evidence of her inability…
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 Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
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 ordering restitution beyond appellant’s ability to pay and in basing same upon written statements of individuals without any hearing.
Upon the first meritorious issue, unlike the defendant in Cheatham v. State, 593 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), appellant effectively objected to the amount of restitution and affirmatively introduced evidence that she did not have the ability to pay the amount imposed. While the defense attorney in Cheatham simply introduced an unsupported statement relating to his client’s inability to pay, defense counsel here introduced the exact amount of appellant’s earnings from which the trial court easily could deduce appellant’s poor financial status. Consequently, the trial court’s order requiring appellant and her codefendant jointly and severally to pay nearly $13,000 in restitution as a condition to probation was unreasonable. On remand, the amount of restitution must be commensurate with appellant’s financial condition and ability to pay.
As for the remaining point on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court further erred by failing to conduct a hearing and by obtaining and relying upon written statements from witnesses as evidence applicable to the amount of restitution imposed. Appellant asserts that the trial court has an affirmative duty to conduct a hearing so as to determine the credibility of the witnesses or lack thereof. We agree. See Thomas v. State, 517 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), and Snell v. State, 502 So,2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. dismissed, 509 So. 2d 1119 (Fla.1987).
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and WARNER, J., concur. LETTS, J., concurs in conclusion only without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 828 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…evidentiary hearing. The court ordered restitution in the amount of. $13,196.85. The state concedes that if the issue was preserved, it was error for the court to impose restitution without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See Langston v. State, 616 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Young v. State, 601 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The record reflects that Miller’s counsel did preserve the issue for review. No magic words are needed to make a proper objection. Avila v. State, 781 So. 2d 413, 415 (Fla. 4t…
-
RAE v. State, 638 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…defense counsel fails to properly object to the evidence. Thomas v. State, 581 So. 2d 992, 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Strickland, v. State, 610 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (trial court may not rely on unsworn testimony); see also Langston v. State, 616 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (trial court has affirmative duty to conduct restitution hearing to determine credibility of witnesses and may not rely upon written statements from witnesses in lieu of hearing), rev. denied, 626 So. 2d 206 (Fla.1993). . Sectio…
-
Vanlieu v. State, 630 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…ts to the amount of the claim at the sentencing hearing, as occurred in this case, he is entitled to a hearing based on competent evidence to establish its amount. See Nettles v. State, 611 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). See also Langston v. State, 616 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 626 So. 2d 206 (Fla.1993); Thomas v. State, 517 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Snell v. State, 502 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). At such a hearing, the state must establish the dollar value of the victim’s loss by a p…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thomas v. State, 517 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Cheatham v. State, 593 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Lewis v. State, 502 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Gladfelter v. State, 604 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)