Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1993

Deangelus v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided February 26, 1993 · Campbell, Hall, Schoonover

614 So. 2d 1194; 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2242; 1993 WL 48236 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Moore v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
Crosby v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s order imposing restitution in the amount of $95,172.23. We affirm the order imposing restitution but reverse the amount.

*1195After a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of driving under the influence. Appellant challenges both the imposition of restitution and the amount. We find no merit to her contention that restitution was improperly imposed and we affirm that portion of the sentence imposing restitution. However, because the appellant met her burden and established by the preponderance of the evidence her inability to pay the amount of $95,172.23 we reverse the amount of restitution. The appellant demonstrated that she has no present nor potential future financial resources to pay the $95,172.23 in restitution ordered by the trial court. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat. (1989); Boss v. State, 613 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Bautista v. State, 600 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Medina v. State, 591 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

We strike the amount of restitution and remand for the trial court to determine a reasonable amount of restitution within the appellant’s ability to pay.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.