Gomez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gomez v. State

521 So. 2d 333, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 647, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 908, 1988 WL 18689

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 9, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1419

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 521 So. 2d 333 (Gomez 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

Gomez v. State, 521 So. 2d 333, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 647, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 908, 1988 WL 18689 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of the trial court’s order requiring him to pay restitution. However, he did not object to the trial court’s order of restitution at the sentencing hearing. We affirm on the authority of Spivey v. State, 501 So.2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The court in Spivey held:

Prior to the 1984 amendment, section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1983) provided that the court might order restitution by a defendant “if the defendant is able or will be able to make restitution.” Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1985) now provides that the court, in ordering restitution, shall consider the financial resources of the defendant and the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents. However, [334]*334section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1985) specifically provides that “[T]he burden of demonstrating the financial resources of the defendant and his dependents is on the defendant.” The failure of appellant to object in the court below to the order of restitution or to attempt to reduce the amount of restitution by citing his financial circumstances, did not meet the burden the statute places upon him.

Id. at 699.

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.

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