R.D.S., 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 delinquent child may be ordered to pay restitution without a showing of present ability to pay, but payments should commence upon obtaining suitable employment.
R.D.S., a seventeen-year-old delinquent, was ordered to pay restitution. His counsel stated he intended to get a job, and the court ordered $25 monthl…
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
KELLY, Judge.
R.D.S. appeals the order requiring him to pay $1635.29 in restitution. We find no merit in his argument on appeal that the trial court erred in imposing restitution without determining his ability to pay. An unemployed or incarcerated delinquent child may be ordered to pay resti tution without a showing of present ability to pay. J.A.M. v. State, 601 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The court must only determine what the child may reasonably be expected to earn upon finding suitable employment and base the amount of restitution on those earnings. § 985.231(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001); A.J. v. State, 677 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); J.M.H. v. State, 589 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
The record reveals that at the May 6, 2002, restitution hearing, R.D.S.’s counsel informed the trial court that while R.D.S. was currently unemployed, he intended to get a job. Based upon this assertion, the trial judge ordered R.D.S. to pay $25 per month commencing on July 1, 2002. We cannot conclude that $25 per month exceeds the amount R.D.S., age seventeen at the time, could reasonably be expected to earn. See § 985.231(l)(a). Accordingly, the restitution imposed by the trial court is affirmed.
We find merit, however, in R.D.S.’s argument that the trial court erred in ordering payment of restitution to begin before he obtained employment. The restitution order provides that “[pjayments are to be made in installments of $25 per month beginning on July 1, 2002.” On remand, the trial court is directed to strike the date specified in the order for commencement of the payments, and order that payments be made once R.D.S. obtains suitable employment that will enable him to comply with the order, for which he must make all reasonable efforts to obtain. See L.J.H. v. State, 627 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); J.A.M., 601 So. 2d at 279.
Affirmed; remanded with directions.
SALCINES and COVINGTON, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.W.G. v. State, 945 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…This court and others have repeatedly held that these statutes do not require that the trial court find that the child has the present ability to pay restitution. See, e.g., R.S.M. v. State, 910 So. 2d 361, 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); R.D.S. v. State, 844 So. 2d 720, 720-21 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); A.J. v. State, 677 So. 2d 935, 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Instead, the court must determine what the child may reasonably be expected to earn upon finding suitable employment and must base the restitution amount on those ex…
-
I.M. v. State, 955 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…ing of present ability to pay, it must determine what the child might reasonably be expected to earn upon finding suitable employment and base the amount of restitution on those anticipated earnings. E.g., M.W.G., 945 So. 2d at 601; R.D.S. v. State, 844 So. 2d 720, 720-21 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); A.J. v. State, 677 So. 2d 935, 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); J.A.M. v. State, 601 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); J.M.H. v. State, 589 So. 2d 394, 395-96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We reverse the restitution order and remand with…
-
K.T.M v. State, 969 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…This court and others have repeatedly held that these statutes do not require that the trial court find that the child has the present ability to pay restitution. See, e.g., R.S.M. v. State, 910 So. 2d 361, 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); R.D.S. v. State, 844 So. 2d 720, 720-21 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); A.J. v. State, 677 So. 2d 935, 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Instead, the court must determine what the child may reasonably be expected to earn upon finding suitable employment and must base the restitution amount on those ex…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- A.J. v. State, 677 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- In the Interest of J.A.M. v. State, 601 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- L.J.H. v. State, 627 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Kervin Keaton v. Dugger, 589 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- In the Interest of J.M.H. v. State, 589 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)