ALFRED KIRKLAND, 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.
A defendant bears the burden to demonstrate financial inability to pay restitution, and a mere question about payment does not satisfy this burden.
[1] A sentencing court has discretion to require a defendant to pay the full amount of restitution when the criminal offense was committed in concert with others.
[2] A defendant bears the burden of demonstrating their present and potential future financial resources and needs, as well as those of their dependents, to the court when se…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 defendant was ordered to pay restitution for property lost during a burglary. He argued he should not be responsible for property taken by others …
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.
PETERSON, Judge.
Alfred Kirkland complains that the trial court erred by entering a restitution order requiring him to pay for the full value of personal property removed during a burglary and by not determining his ability to pay the restitution amount of $14,042.72. During the restitution hearing Kirkland told the trial court that the issue was not the value of the property taken, but that he should not be responsible for the property taken by others during the robbery. Kirkland would not or could not tell the court how many others were involved. When asked by the court for names of the others, Kirkland partially responded by saying, “[W]ell, not exactly the name, but I gave them the location where he can locate them.”
Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1991) requires a sentencing court to order a defendant to make restitution to victims for losses caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s criminal offense. Where a defendant commits a criminal offense in concert with others a court has discretion to require the defendant to pay the full amount of restitution. Spivey v. State, 531 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1988). In ordering restitution, the court is directed to consider “the financial resources of the defendant, the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate”. § 775.089(6), Fla.Stat. (1991). The burden of demonstrating the present and potential future resources and needs of the defendant and his dependents is on the defendant. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat. (1991). In the instant case the only mention of such resources or needs came from the defendant, not in the form of evidence, but in the form of a question:
[I] would like to know how will I pay this fourteen thousand dollars? I’m incarcerated for ten years with habitual sentence ....
Kirkland’s response and question do not satisfy the statutory burden to show the court why he cannot pay the restitution.
The restitution order is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS, C.J., and W. SHARP, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. State, 664 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…t Moore’s blows caused the injury, this court previously has held that, “[w]here a defendant commits a criminal offense in concert with others a court has discretion to require the defendant to pay the full amount of restitution.” Kirkland v. State, 629 So. 2d 1057, 1057 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (rejecting defendant’s argument that he should not be responsible for making restitution for property taken by others during robbery) (citing Spivey v. State, 531 So. 2d 965 (Fla.1988)); see also § 775.089(l)(a), Fla.Stat.…
-
Dukes v. State, 639 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…f the defendant prior to determining whether to order costs and the amount of such costs, but the burden of demonstrating the financial resources and needs of the defendant is on the defendant. §§ 939.01(5), (6), Fla.Stat. (1993); Kirkland v. State, 629 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Butts v. State, 575 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Leach v. State, 602 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Compare §§ 775.089(6), (7). Based on the record before us, it is clear that Dukes failed to meet her statutory burden below…
Authorities Cited
- Spivey v. State, 531 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1988)