LAWTON ROBERT WALKER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Walker appeals an order modifying his probation condition to redirect restitution payments from the victim's family to an insurance company that had paid the victim's funeral expenses. The court affirmed, holding that changing the payee of restitution does not alter probation conditions and that insurance companies are subrogated to the rights of crime victims.
The court affirmed the modification, holding that changing the payee of restitution does not alter the probation condition because Walker's underlying obligation remains the same, and that insurance companies are subrogated to the rights of crime victims, making defendants responsible for restitution to insurers under Florida law.
[1] A defendant's obligation to pay restitution as part of a probation sentence is not altered by a change in the payee, particularly when the defendant agreed to pay restitu…
[2] An insurance company, having paid restitution to its insured victim, is subrogated to the rights of the victim and may be awarded restitution from the defendant.
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 intelligence“Changing the payee does not alter appellant's probation conditions in any way; appellant's obligation hasn't changed.”
Establishes that modifying the recipient of restitution does not constitute a material alteration of probation terms.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalker pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter and received a sentence including six years probation and an obligation to pay restitution to the victim's f…
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 Probation Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, J.
Lawton Robert Walker appeals an order modifying a condition of probation. We affirm.
Appellant pled guilty to one count of DUI manslaughter in exchange for a sentence of six years probation, 300 days in Dade County Jail, and payment of restitution to the victim’s family for the victim’s medical and funeral expenses. Four years later, appellant appeared in court for a report regarding probation. The probation officer informed the court that the insurance company had paid for the victim’s funeral expenses and the family did not want restitution from appellant. The prosecutor orally moved to modify probation requesting that the court order appellant to pay restitution to the insurance company. The court granted the motion.
Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in modifying the probation to order payment of restitution to the insurance company under section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2001).
We are not persuaded by this argument. As a threshold consideration, appellant agreed to pay restitution as part of his plea bargain. Changing the payee does not alter appellant’s probation conditions in any way; appellant’s obligation hasn’t changed. Notwithstanding that fact, in Montalvo v. State, 705 So. 2d 984, 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), we affirmed an order awarding an insurance company restitution in the amounts it had paid to its insured, the victim. Our sister courts have held “that an insurance company is subro-gated to the rights of the victim/insured,” Cyrus v. State, 712 So. 2d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), making the defendant responsible for restitution to the insurance company. See State v. Williams, 689 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); L.S. v. State, 593 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); M.E.I. v. State, 525 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
Hence, we are not persuaded by appellant’s argument that restitution to the insurance company under the statute is error.
Moreover, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the probation order. The court had no discretion but to order restitution under the statute. Kirby v. State, 863 So. 2d 238 (Fla.2003); Montalvo; L.S., 593 So. 2d at 297. The modification of the payee was ministerial, as restitution had been ordered as part of the original probation sentence.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Danzey v. State, 186 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ence regarding the amount paid by the victim’s insurance company). On remand, the trial court is not precluded from also ordering restitution to the insurance company if the award is supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Walker v. State, 919 So. 2d 501, 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding that trial court did not err in ordering payment of restitution to insurance company); L.S. v. State, 593 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (holding that insurance company is also entitled to restitution). Accordi…
Authorities Cited
- Kirby v. State, 863 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2003)
- L.S. v. State, 593 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Onel Montalvo v. State, 705 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- M.E.I. v. State, 525 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Demetrious Cyrus v. State, 712 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- State v. Curt Williams, 689 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)