From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mallard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Dec 18, 1992
609 So. 2d 178 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Opinion

No. 92-453.

December 18, 1992.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County; Stephen L. Boyles, Judge.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Daniel J. Schafer, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David G. Mersch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.


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 resentencing.

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


Summaries of

Mallard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Dec 18, 1992
609 So. 2d 178 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
Case details for

Mallard v. State

Case Details

Full title:NORMAN J. MALLARD, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Dec 18, 1992

Citations

609 So. 2d 178 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

McCoy v. State

Appellant in this case also correctly contends that the trial court erred by imposing restitution without…