Fabregat v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fabregat v. State

651 So. 2d 826, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2572, 1995 WL 108951

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 15, 1995

DocketNo. 94-2196

StatusPublished

This text of 651 So. 2d 826 (Fabregat 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

Fabregat v. State, 651 So. 2d 826, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2572, 1995 WL 108951 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court order imposing $7,000 restitution in this cause is affirmed based on a holding that: (1) the subject order was entered, not as a condition of probation, but as an independent restitution order pursuant to Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994) and, as such, is payable within five years after the date of sentencing on June 21, 1994, § 775.089(3)(b)(3), Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1994); (2) the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he is [827]*827now, or in the future will be, financially unable to pay the ordered restitution, Medina v. State, 591 So.2d 1085 (Fla.1991); Bain v. State, 642 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), rev. denied, 651 So.2d 1192 (Fla.1995); and (3) the state presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s imposition of $7,000 as the appropriate.amount of restitution in this case. State v. Hawthorne, 573 So.2d 330 (Fla.1991); Anderson v. State, 649 So.2d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court order imposing $7,000 restitution in this cause is affirmed based on a holding that: (1) the subject order was entered, not as a condition of probation, but as an independent restitution order pursuant to Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994) and, as such, is payable within five years after the date of sentencing on June 21, 1994, § 775.089(3)(b)(3), Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1994); (2) the defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he is [827]*827now, or in the future will be, financially unable to pay the ordered restitution, Medina v. State, 591 So.2d 1085 (Fla.1991); Bain v. State, 642 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), rev. denied, 651 So.2d 1192 (Fla.1995); and (3) the state presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s imposition of $7,000 as the appropriate.amount of restitution in this case. State v. Hawthorne, 573 So.2d 330 (Fla.1991); Anderson v. State, 649 So.2d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

651 So. 2d 826, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2572, 1995 WL 108951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fabregat-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack