IRVIN LEVEROCK, 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 restitution was properly imposed due to adequate notice, but drug offender probation was improperly ordered.
Leveroek was found guilty of grand theft and charged with violating probation. He appealed the imposition of restitution and the drug offender probati…
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 Drug Offender Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The two issues raised on this appeal deal with the imposition of restitution and whether drug offender probation was properly ordered by the trial court. Leveroek had previously pled guilty to grand theft in the third degree, and then was charged with violating the terms of his probation.
As to the first point raised by Leveroek that the trial court erred by imposing restitution in the amount of $1,026.83, we note that he was given adequate notice that restitution would be imposed. State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla.1991). The burden of demonstrating the present financial resources and absence of ability to pay rests with the defendant. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat. (1993). See also Driggers v. State, 622 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
Secondly, Leveroek argues that because of the nature of the charge and adjudication, the drug offender section of his probation should be stricken. We agree. Contrary to the state’s position, Leveroek did object and has appealed the substance abuse treatment conditions. The argument that Leveroek cannot raise this issue now because he did not object to a few similar conditions in the initial probation order is without merit. See MacIntyre v. State, 625 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Edmunds v. State, 559 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Accordingly, the drug offender probation order is reversed.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1991)
- Edmunds v. State, 559 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Driggers v. State, 622 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Franz R. Belhomme v. Rigal Plastics, Inc., 625 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)