Bourget v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bourget v. State

634 So. 2d 1109, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3276, 1994 WL 114749

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 6, 1994

DocketNo. 92-04137

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 634 So. 2d 1109 (Bourget v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bourget v. State, 634 So. 2d 1109, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3276, 1994 WL 114749 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lori Bourget appeals from her sentence for insurance fraud and making a false report to law enforcement and contends that the trial court erred in imposing restitution and probation conditions. We determine that the trial court acted within its discretion in making Bourget jointly and severally ha-ble with the other codefendants for the $11,-210 restitution award. See Spivey v. State, 531 So.2d 965 (Fla.1988). Although Bourget testified that she could not afford to pay restitution, we agree with the trial court’s determination that she could afford to make a small monthly payment. We note that the trial court cannot revoke her probation for an inability to pay if she makes a bona fide effort to obtain the necessary resources. See Nix v. State, 604 So.2d 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

Bourget correctly argues, however, that the special conditions of probation which prohibit her from possessing firearms and using intoxicants excessively are invalid. The conditions (1) are unrelated to the insurance fraud, (2) are not criminal activities, and (3) do not relate to future criminality. See Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla.1993). Therefore, we strike special conditions (4) and (7) of Bourget’s probation.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and FULMER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Lori Bourget appeals from her sentence for insurance fraud and making a false report to law enforcement and contends that the trial court erred in imposing restitution and probation conditions. We determine that the trial court acted within its discretion in making Bourget jointly and severally ha-ble with the other codefendants for the $11,-210 restitution award. See Spivey v. State, 531 So.2d 965 (Fla.1988). Although Bourget testified that she could not afford to pay restitution, we agree with the trial court’s determination that she could afford to make a small monthly payment. We note that the trial court cannot revoke her probation for an inability to pay if she makes a bona fide effort to obtain the necessary resources. See Nix v. State, 604 So.2d 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

Bourget correctly argues, however, that the special conditions of probation which prohibit her from possessing firearms and using intoxicants excessively are invalid. The conditions (1) are unrelated to the insurance fraud, (2) are not criminal activities, and (3) do not relate to future criminality. See Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla.1993). Therefore, we strike special conditions (4) and (7) of Bourget’s probation.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and FULMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

634 So. 2d 1109, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3276, 1994 WL 114749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bourget-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack