A.T., 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.T., a minor, was found guilty of battery and criminal mischief with adjudication withheld and placed on community control with restitution ordered. The appellate court affirmed the sufficiency of the restitution amount and the special condition of community control, but reversed and remanded regarding the trial court's failure to determine the ability to pay and the indefinite duration of community control supervision.
The sufficiency of the restitution amount is affirmed, but the trial court erred in ordering restitution without determining either party's ability to pay. The special condition of community control does not violate constitutional rights and is affirmed. Community control cannot be imposed for an indefinite period and must be limited to a specific duration.
[1] A trial court errs by ordering restitution jointly and severally against a defendant and another party without first determining each party's ability to pay.
[2] A special condition of community control does not violate a defendant's right against self-incrimination when truthful answers would not expose the defendant to prosecuti…
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 intelligence“The trial court did err, however, by ordering the appellant and her mother to pay the restitution without making a determination of either's ability to do so.”
Establishes the error regarding restitution orders requiring ability-to-pay determination
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.T. participated in an altercation that resulted in personal injury and property damage to the victim. The trial court found A.T. guilty of battery a…
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 Restitution cases and more on FLexlaw
MOORE, CECELIA M., Associate Judge.
The trial court heard evidence showing that an altercation the appellant took part in resulted in personal injury and property damage to the victim. The trial court found the appellant guilty of the charges of battery and criminal mischief but withheld adjudication. ' At a restitution and sentencing hearing the trial court held the appellant and her mother jointly and severally hable for the victim’s monetary damages and placed the appellant on community control. The appellant contends that the order of restitution is flawed in several respects, that a special condition of probation orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing violates her constitutional right not to incriminate herself, and that the community control cannot be for an indeterminate duration. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We find there was sufficient evidence to support the amount of restitution ordered, and we affirm as to that issue; The trial court did err, however, by ordering the appellant and her mother to pay the restitution without making a determination of either’s ability to do so. See C.D.D. v. State, 684 So. 2d 866, 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). On remand the trial court must make this determination.
The special condition of community control announced by the trial, court at the sentencing hearing does not violate any constitutional right of the appellant. See Lopez v. State, 349 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (disclosure must present reasonable grounds for real danger of criminal prosecution); Cassamassima v. State, 657 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (witness may only refuse to answer if truthful answer would expose him to prosecution for crime different from one of which he was already convicted); see also State v. Woodland, 602 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (violation of probation order does not, by itself, constitute separate substantive crime); Carwise v. State, 449 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (probation violation hearing is not prosecution for a crime but for a violation of court order). We, therefore, affirm the order of community control.
Finally, we agree with the appellant, and the State concedes the error, that the community control may not be for an indefinite period. C.D.D., 684 So. 2d at 867-68. Therefore, on remand the trial court should specify that the period of supervision shall not exceed the appellant’s 19th birthday.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S.P.D. v. State, 720 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…dwelling and third degree grand theft. We affirm the adjudication and disposition, but remand for correction of the delinquency order to specify that the period of supervision shall not exceed S.P.D.’s nineteenth birthday. [*276] See A.T. v. State, 706 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). THREADGILL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Cassamassima v. State, 657 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Lopez v. State, 349 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- In the Interest of C.D.D. v. State, 684 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- State v. Woodland, 602 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Carwise v. State, 449 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)