Glabman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Glabman v. State

509 So. 2d 1337, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1765, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9477

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 21, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2090

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 509 So. 2d 1337 (Glabman 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

Glabman v. State, 509 So. 2d 1337, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1765, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9477 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although the defendant claims that the $600 per month in restitution required as a condition of her probation is beyond her means, we find that the sum fixed by the trial court represents an appropriate balance between the large amount, over $200,-000, she embezzled from her employer and is therefore required to repay, on the one hand, and her ability to do so, on the other. Hence, there was no error in the exercise [1338]*1338of the authority conferred by sections 775. 089(l)(a), (6), Florida Statutes (1985).¹

The other point raised also lacks merit.

Affirmed.

¹

. Sections 775.089(l)(a), (6), Florida Statutes (1985), state:

775.089 Restitution.—

(l)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense, unless it finds reasons not to order such restitution. Restitution may be monetary or non-monetary restitution. The court shall make the payment of restitution a condition to probation in accordance with s. 948.03.

******

(6) The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense, the financial resources of the defendant, the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate.

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

PER CURIAM.

Although the defendant claims that the $600 per month in restitution required as a condition of her probation is beyond her means, we find that the sum fixed by the trial court represents an appropriate balance between the large amount, over $200,-000, she embezzled from her employer and is therefore required to repay, on the one hand, and her ability to do so, on the other. Hence, there was no error in the exercise [1338]*1338of the authority conferred by sections 775. 089(l)(a), (6), Florida Statutes (1985).¹

The other point raised also lacks merit.

Affirmed.

¹

. Sections 775.089(l)(a), (6), Florida Statutes (1985), state:

775.089 Restitution.—

(l)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense, unless it finds reasons not to order such restitution. Restitution may be monetary or non-monetary restitution. The court shall make the payment of restitution a condition to probation in accordance with s. 948.03.

******

(6) The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense, the financial resources of the defendant, the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

509 So. 2d 1337, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1765, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glabman-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack