Leverock v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Leverock v. State

627 So. 2d 1354, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12910, 1993 WL 540160

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 30, 1993

DocketNo. 93-502

StatusPublished

This text of 627 So. 2d 1354 (Leverock 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

Leverock v. State, 627 So. 2d 1354, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12910, 1993 WL 540160 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, Judge.

The two issues raised on this appeal deal with the imposition of restitution and whether drug offender probation was properly ordered by the trial court. Leveroek had previously pled guilty to grand theft in the third degree, and then was charged with violating the terms of his probation.

As to the first point raised by Leveroek that the trial court erred by imposing restitution in the amount of $1,026.83, we note that he was given adequate notice that restitution would be imposed. State v. Beasley, 580 So.2d 139 (Fla.1991). The burden of demonstrating the present financial resources and absence of ability to pay rests with the defendant. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat. (1993). See also Driggers v. State, 622 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

Secondly, Leveroek argues that because of the nature of the charge and adjudication, the drug offender section of his probation should be stricken. We agree. Contrary to the state’s position, Leveroek did object and has appealed the substance abuse treatment conditions. The argument that Leveroek cannot raise this issue now because he did not object to a few similar conditions in the initial probation order is without merit. See MacIntyre v. State, 625 So.2d 118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Edmunds v. State, 559 So.2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Accordingly, the drug offender probation order is reversed.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

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

COBB, Judge.

The two issues raised on this appeal deal with the imposition of restitution and whether drug offender probation was properly ordered by the trial court. Leveroek had previously pled guilty to grand theft in the third degree, and then was charged with violating the terms of his probation.

As to the first point raised by Leveroek that the trial court erred by imposing restitution in the amount of $1,026.83, we note that he was given adequate notice that restitution would be imposed. State v. Beasley, 580 So.2d 139 (Fla.1991). The burden of demonstrating the present financial resources and absence of ability to pay rests with the defendant. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat. (1993). See also Driggers v. State, 622 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

Secondly, Leveroek argues that because of the nature of the charge and adjudication, the drug offender section of his probation should be stricken. We agree. Contrary to the state’s position, Leveroek did object and has appealed the substance abuse treatment conditions. The argument that Leveroek cannot raise this issue now because he did not object to a few similar conditions in the initial probation order is without merit. See MacIntyre v. State, 625 So.2d 118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Edmunds v. State, 559 So.2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Accordingly, the drug offender probation order is reversed.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

627 So. 2d 1354, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12910, 1993 WL 540160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leverock-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack