CARLA GLADFELTER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether restitution amounts must be determined within sixty days of sentencing. The Court held that when restitution is included as an original probation condition, the trial court may determine the specific amount at a later date without violating Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).
The Court held that when restitution is made an original condition of probation, the trial court may properly determine the amount of restitution at a later date without violating Rule 3.800(b). Section 948.03(8) authorizes modification of probation terms at any time, and this was not a case of adding a new probation condition.
[1] A court may determine the amount of restitution at a later date when restitution is made an original condition of probation.
[2] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 does not require the amount of restitution to be determined within sixty days of sentencing when restitution is an original condi…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Because restitution was made an original condition of the probation, the court could properly determine the amount of restitution at a later date.”
Establishes the core holding that timing of amount determination is not constrained by the sixty-day rule when restitution is an original probation condition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarla Gladfelter pled guilty to driving while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury and violation of probation for grand theft. She was sentenced …
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 Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
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 to driving while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury and to a violation of probation for grand theft. She was sentenced to three years' incarceration followed by two years’ probation. As conditions of her probation, she was to obtain fulltime employment within sixty days of her release and to pay restitution. Approximately fifteen months later, after her release from prison, a hearing was held at which she was ordered to pay restitution totalling $5,896.72 to three health-care providers who treated the injured victim.
On appeal, Gladfelter contended that it was error to establish the amount of restitution beyond sixty days after the sentence was imposed. The district court of appeal rejected this contention, reasoning that as long as the requirement to pay restitution was included in the sentence, setting the actual amount of restitution even beyond sixty days was permissible. The court acknowledged conflict with State v. Martin which had held on similar facts that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) precluded the entry of an order determining restitution more than sixty days after sentencing.
We agree with the court below. Because restitution was made an original condition of the probation, the court could properly determine the amount of restitution at a later date. We do not construe rule 3.800 as requiring this to be done within sixty days. Section 948.03(8), Florida Statutes (1989), authorizes the modification of the terms and conditions of probation at any time. This is not a case in which a new condition of probation was added. See Clark v. State, 579 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1991) (absent proof of a violation, the court cannot change an order of probation by enhancing the terms thereof).
We also see no objection to requiring the restitution to be paid to the healthcare providers who treated the victim injured by Gladfelter’s driving. Section 775.-089(2), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that where an offense has resulted in bodily injury to a victim, a restitution order should be entered requiring the defendant to pay the costs of necessary medical and related services.
We disapprove State v. Martin to the extent that it conflicts with this opinion. We approve the decision of the court below.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, SHAW, KOGAN and . HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
State v. Hiscox, 677 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…of sentencing or within sixty days thereafter and if that order has been entered in a timely manner, a court can determine the amount of restitution beyond the sixty day period. See Sanderson, [*863] 625 So. 2d at 473. See also Gladfelter v. State, 618 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1993). In the instant case, because restitution was made an original condition of the probation order which was filed fifteen days after the sentencing hearing, the trial court could properly determine the amount of restitution at a later date…
-
T.W.L. v. State, 684 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…DCA 1993). The state responds that the trial court made a timely ruling to order restitution at the April 1995 disposition hearing and reserved jurisdiction merely to determine the amount of restitution, a procedure approved in Gladfelter v. State, 618 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1993), State v. M.C., 666 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1995) (approving holding that where trial court merely reserved jurisdiction on question of restitution at hearing and ordered restitution more than 60 days later, orders of restitution had to be revers…
-
Evans v. State, 678 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ng hearing. If the trial court orders restitution at the time of sentencing or within sixty days thereafter, the trial court may determine the amount of restitution at a later date. State v. Sanderson, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1993); Gladfelter v. State, 618 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1993). Further, in Evans’s statement provided to the trial court at the time of sentencing, Evans agreed to pay the victim’s costs of counseling and restitution to the extent he was able. Therefore, Evans does not challenge the imposition of re…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clark v. State, 579 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Martin, 577 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Gladfelter v. State, 604 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)