Glabman v. State

509 So. 2d 1337, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1765, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9477
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 21, 1987·No. No. 86-2090·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] of the authority conferred by sections 775. 089(l)(a), (6), Florida Statutes (1985).1

The other point raised also lacks merit.

Affirmed.

Footnotes

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

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

509 So. 2d 1337 (Glabman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Maseri v. State
752 So. 2d 719 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)