Haines v. State
Haines v. State
Opinion of the Court
Upon acceptance of appellant’s plea of guilty to violation of probation,
Appellant challenges the order to pay restitution following his prison term. The burden of demonstrating the absence of potential future financial resources of the defendant sufficient to pay restitution is upon the defendant. § 775.089(7), F.S. (1989). Because appellant failed to present or to proffer any evidence as to his financial ability, he waived any objection to the trial court’s inquiry into appellant’s ability to pay restitution, and his sentence is affirmed. See, Abbott v. State, 543 So.2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
AFFIRMED.
. Appellant was charged with violation of his probation for leaving the Probation and Restitution Center without permission. .
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Christopher HAINES v. STATE of Florida
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published