Deangelus v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Deangelus v. State

614 So. 2d 1194, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2242, 1993 WL 48236

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 26, 1993

DocketNo. 91-02947

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 614 So. 2d 1194 (Deangelus 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

Deangelus v. State, 614 So. 2d 1194, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2242, 1993 WL 48236 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s order imposing restitution in the amount of $95,172.23. We affirm the order imposing restitution but reverse the amount.

[1195]*1195After a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of driving under the influence. Appellant challenges both the imposition of restitution and the amount. We find no merit to her contention that restitution was improperly imposed and we affirm that portion of the sentence imposing restitution. However, because the appellant met her burden and established by the preponderance of the evidence her inability to pay the amount of $95,172.23 we reverse the amount of restitution. The appellant demonstrated that she has no present nor potential future financial resources to pay the $95,172.23 in restitution ordered by the trial court. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat. (1989); Boss v. State, 613 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Bautista v. State, 600 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Medina v. State, 591 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

We strike the amount of restitution and remand for the trial court to determine a reasonable amount of restitution within the appellant’s ability to pay.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s order imposing restitution in the amount of $95,172.23. We affirm the order imposing restitution but reverse the amount.

[1195]*1195After a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of driving under the influence. Appellant challenges both the imposition of restitution and the amount. We find no merit to her contention that restitution was improperly imposed and we affirm that portion of the sentence imposing restitution. However, because the appellant met her burden and established by the preponderance of the evidence her inability to pay the amount of $95,172.23 we reverse the amount of restitution. The appellant demonstrated that she has no present nor potential future financial resources to pay the $95,172.23 in restitution ordered by the trial court. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat. (1989); Boss v. State, 613 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Bautista v. State, 600 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Medina v. State, 591 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

We strike the amount of restitution and remand for the trial court to determine a reasonable amount of restitution within the appellant’s ability to pay.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

614 So. 2d 1194, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2242, 1993 WL 48236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deangelus-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack