Mallard v. State

609 So. 2d 178, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12619, 1992 WL 371551
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 18, 1992·No. No. 92-453·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case, Norman Mallard argues that the trial court erred by imposing restitution, over objection, without first determining Mallard’s ability to pay, as required by section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1991). We agree and reverse Mallard’s sentence and remand for resentencing with directions to the trial court to consider Mallard’s resources and ability to pay when determining whether to impose restitution. See Denmark v. State, 588 So.2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Green v. State, 571 So.2d 571 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Leyba v. State, 520 So.2d 705 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). See also Anderson v. State, 556 So.2d 527 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

GOSHORN, C.J., and W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

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

Mallard v. State, 609 So. 2d 178, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12619, 1992 WL 371551 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

609 So. 2d 178 (Mallard v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McCoy v. State
632 So. 2d 181 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)