Sam v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sam v. State

741 So. 2d 1247, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13162, 1999 WL 790663

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 6, 1999

DocketNo. 98-02310

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 741 So. 2d 1247 (Sam 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

Sam v. State, 741 So. 2d 1247, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13162, 1999 WL 790663 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Rohit K. Sam appeals a judgment of restitution in favor of the Florida Department of Insurance in the amount of $4,370.03 for the costs it incurred in investigating an insurance fraud claim against Mr. Sam. The State concedes error. We reverse because the Florida Department of Insurance is not a “victim” as that term is used in the restitution statute, section 775.089(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1997). See Rodriguez v. State, 691 So.2d 568, 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Staudt v. State, 616 So.2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The amounts assessed in this case are in the nature of costs of prosecution. Although this record suggests that Mr. Sam does not have the financial ability to pay such costs, the State is not precluded from seeking these costs on remand provided it complies with section 938.27, Florida Statutes (1997).

Reversed and remanded.

[1248]*1248ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Rohit K. Sam appeals a judgment of restitution in favor of the Florida Department of Insurance in the amount of $4,370.03 for the costs it incurred in investigating an insurance fraud claim against Mr. Sam. The State concedes error. We reverse because the Florida Department of Insurance is not a “victim” as that term is used in the restitution statute, section 775.089(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1997). See Rodriguez v. State, 691 So.2d 568, 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Staudt v. State, 616 So.2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The amounts assessed in this case are in the nature of costs of prosecution. Although this record suggests that Mr. Sam does not have the financial ability to pay such costs, the State is not precluded from seeking these costs on remand provided it complies with section 938.27, Florida Statutes (1997).

Reversed and remanded.

[1248]*1248ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

741 So. 2d 1247, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13162, 1999 WL 790663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sam-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack