VERONICA PAT FRANKLIN, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed probation revocation and restitution reinstatement but struck automatic yearly payment increases lacking evidentiary support.
Automatic yearly increases in restitution payments must be stricken where unsupported by evidence, though the base restitution amount and initial monthly payment are affirmed.
[1] Restitution payment schedules with automatic yearly increases must be supported by evidence in the record; absent such support, the automatic increase provisions must be…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVeronica Franklin's probation was revoked, she was adjudicated guilty, and placed on probation again with restitution of $35,491.99. The restitution o…
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 Terms cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Veronica Franklin appeals the trial court’s revocation of her probation, adjudication of guilt and reinstatement of restitution. We affirm the trial court’s rulings with one exception.
After revoking Franklin’s probation, the trial court adjudicated her guilty and placed her on probation again for a period of ten years. The order of probation provides that Franklin pay restitution as follows: “$35,-491.99 LESS $1,099.96 PREVIOUSLY PAID AT RATE OF $60 MONTH BEGINNING 1-1-97, UNTIL 1-1-98 THEN $75 MONTH UNTIL 1-1-99 THEN $100 MONTH UNTIL 1-1-2000 THEN $25 ADDITIONAL EACH MONTH, INCREASED YEARLY, UNTIL PAID IN FULL.”
Franklin signed a plea form in the underlying case in which she agreed to pay restitution and made no challenge to the $35,491.99 amount that she was ordered to pay. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court’s reinstatement of the restitution obligation. However, while there is evidence in the record to support the trial court’s order that Franklin pay $60 per month toward the restitution, there was no evidence to support the automatic yearly increases. Therefore, we strike the portion of the condition that orders the automatic increases in the amount of the restitution payment and affirm the condition in all other respects. Affirmed with portion of probation condition stricken.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and FULMER and GREEN, JJ., concur.