From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pope v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Feb 27, 1991
575 So. 2d 307 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Opinion

No. 90-01028.

February 27, 1991.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Polk County, Dennis P. Maloney, J.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


The appellant, Edith Shadwick Pope, challenges the trial court's determination that she make restitution payments totaling $1,330.28. We find no merit in her contention that the state did not present sufficient competent evidence to establish the amount of restitution. We agree, however, that the court erred by not allowing the appellant to testify at the restitution hearing with regard to her ability to pay restitution. See § 775.089(6), Fla. Stat. (1987). We, accordingly, reverse and remand for another restitution hearing.

We also strike the court costs and attorney's fees without prejudice to the state to seek reimposition after proper notice and opportunity to be heard.

Reversed and remanded.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pope v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Feb 27, 1991
575 So. 2d 307 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
Case details for

Pope v. State

Case Details

Full title:EDITH SHADWICK POPE, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Feb 27, 1991

Citations

575 So. 2d 307 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Citing Cases

Winborn v. State

The trial court should also hear evidence on Winborn's ability to pay. Pope v. State, 575 So.2d 307 (Fla. 2d…

Oyola v. State

The appellant contends, and the appellee agrees, that the trial court erred in imposing restitution without…