Jarawdi v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jarawdi v. State

521 So. 2d 261, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 606, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 828

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 2, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1222

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 521 So. 2d 261 (Jarawdi 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

Jarawdi v. State, 521 So. 2d 261, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 606, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 828 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

At Jarawdi’s sentencing hearing following his convictions for grand theft and failure to appear, the trial court imposed restitution to the victim in the amount of $94,-[262]*262000.- Jarawdi appeals from the order of restitution. We reverse.

Jarawdi first argues that the trial court erred in ordering restitution to the victim when the victim had recovered from an insurance company damages resulting from Jarawdi’s conduct. We disagree. See Amison v. State, 504 So.2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (the insurance company is sub-rogated to the rights of the victim and restitution can be ordered for the full amount of loss irrespective of reimbursement to the victim).

However, Jarawdi correctly asserts that the trial court erred in failing to consider his ability to pay the restitution amount, as required by section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1987). We agree and remand for a proper hearing to determine Jarawdi’s ability to pay. Amison; Pettway v. State, 502 So.2d 1366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

LEHAN, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.

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