TONY LEMAR FISHER, 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.
Tony Lemar Fisher appeals a restitution order requiring him to pay the victim's student loans. The court reversed, holding that ordering restitution for student loans—items not included in the original 1997 sentence—violated his double jeopardy rights by impermissibly increasing his sentence.
Yes, the trial court violated Fisher's double jeopardy rights. It is a double jeopardy violation to increase the amount of restitution a defendant must pay after sentencing by adding obligations for items not originally ordered as restitution.
[1] A trial court violates a defendant's double jeopardy rights by increasing the amount of restitution after the sentence has been entered and restitution ordered.
[2] Restitution orders are limited to the scope of expenses contemplated in the original sentencing order.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It is a double jeopardy violation for a trial court to increase the amount of restitution a defendant is required to pay after the sentence is entered and payment of restitution is ordered.”
Establishes the core legal principle that increasing restitution post-sentence violates double jeopardy protections.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFisher attacked a victim, causing injuries to her hands and wrists. He pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree murder with a deadly weapon and burgla…
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 Sentencing Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Tony Lemar Fisher (defendant) appeals the restitution order entered against him. Because the order improperly awards restitution for items not included in the defendant’s original sentence, we reverse.
The defendant attacked the victim causing injuries to her hands and wrists. He pled guilty to the charge of attempted first-degree murder with a deadly weapon and burglary of a dwelling while armed. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the defendant agreed to pay restitution to the victim for treatment and therapy. Specifically, at the sentencing hearing (held in 1997), the court ordered the defendant to pay “on going” restitution to the victim for “medical, physical, psychiatric and psychological care, including non-medical care and treatment given under any recognized method of healing.”
Upon the defendant’s release from prison in 2012, his probation officer could not determine the amount of restitution due the victim. Accordingly, another restitution hearing was held. At that hearing, the State requested the court to grant restitution to. the victim in the amount of her student loans; the State did not request restitution for medical care and re*414lated services. The trial court awarded the restitution sought by the State, determining that the victim’s severe hand injuries prevented her from doing manual labor and prompted her to seek a college education so she could gain employment.
The defendant argues that the trial court violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy by ordering him to pay the victim restitution to cover her student loans because the ruling increased his sentence.1 We agree.
It is a double jeopardy violation for a trial court to increase the amount of restitution a defendant is required to pay after the sentence is entered and payment of restitution is ordered. See Strickland v. State, 681 So.2d 929 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Thus, the instant restitution order violated the defendant’s double jeopardy rights because it imposed an obligation to pay the victim’s student loans when the original restitution order required restitution only for expenses related to the victim’s medical costs. Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order and remand for a new restitution hearing. See Locus v. State, 785 So.2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). At such hearing, the State can seek the full amount of restitution due for the victim’s “medical and related services and devices related to physical, psychiatric and psychological care, including non-medical care and treatment rendered in accordance with a recognized method of healing.”
REVERSED and REMANDED.
TORPY, C.J. and ORFINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Annatone v. State, 198 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…ectly notes that Appellant did not properly preserve this issue below; however, we have previously upheld review in a similar situation finding that "errors that vio■late a defendant’s double jeopardy rights are deemed fundamental.” Fisher v. State, 124 So. 3d 413, 414 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). . This general double jeopardy principle also applies to any restitution amounts announced as part of the' sentence. See, e.g., Kittelson v. State, 980 So. 2d 533, 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) ("[Ojnce the court has entere…
Authorities Cited
- Bailey v. State, 21 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- Strickland v. State, 681 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Locus v. State, 785 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Lewis v. State, 785 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)