T.F., A CHILD, AND A.F. AND G.F., PARENTS, APPELLANTS,
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 the restitution statute is constitutional and that the juvenile and parents have the ability to pay damages. However, the order contained a scrivener's error regarding the amounts assessed.
A juvenile and accomplices burglarized a home, started a fire while attempting to hot-wire a car, and were ordered to pay restitution. The juvenile an…
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 Statutory Constitutionality cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, J.
This is an appeal from a restitution order in a delinquency case. The juvenile appellant and several accomplices burglarized a home and in attempting to hot wire a car in the garage, started a fire. The appellant, joined by his parents, attacks the statute, section 985.231(1)(a)(9), Florida Statutes (1998), asserting it is unconstitutional. Although the trial court was never given the opportunity to rule on this issue because it was not raised below, we are not persuaded it is unconstitutional. The requirement that the burglars and their parents pay for the damage caused is rational, serves a legitimate governmental purpose and is not at all unclear in its wording and intent.
Appellants also raise as error the trial court’s admitting hearsay evidence in support of the state’s submissions on the amount of the damages. Because they did not object to its admission they cannot have us fault the trial judge. Finally, an issue as to the ability to pay the damages is raised. The evidence shows the appellants have the ability, each of them, to make the money to pay the damages over time.
Due to a scrivener’s error, the amount assessed against the juveniles and the amount assessed against the parents were reversed in the order. Thus, the case is remanded for entry of a new order to correct this conceded error. Order AFFIRMED in substance, REMANDED for correction of scrivener’s error. W. SHARP and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
B.M. v. State, 744 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…below was that the victim did not establish the fair market value of his loss. This court has recently held that B.M.’s co-defendant, T.F., cannot complain of the identical issue on appeal for lack of preservation in the trial court. T.F. v. State, 734 So. 2d 601, 1999 WL 445717 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). See also Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985); J.C. v. State, 722 So. 2d 982, 983 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). If the loss proposal were objectionable on hearsay grounds, equivalent competent evidence was likel…1 / 3
-
T.K. v. State, 743 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…and part of the house. The criminal process culminated in a single restitution hearing for all five children. This court has already addressed separate appeals by B.M., T.F., and M.K. B.M. v. State, 744 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); T.F. v. State, 734 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), and M.K. v. State, 732 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Even if the error had been preserved> we agree with inference in M K¡ which infer. ence is based upon that opinion’s reference to Dickens v. State, 350 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1s…