Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

BRUCE FILMORE, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE.

GUNTHER, Judge.

Appellant, Bruce Filmore, defendant below (Filmore), appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence for attempted first degree murder with a firearm. We affirm in all respects except one.

Filmore contends that the trial court failed to comply with statutory law requiring a determination of all factors, including Appellant's ability to pay, prior to imposing restitution. The State concedes that the trial court made no findings concerning Appellant's ability to pay restitution.

Repeatedly we have held that the trial court must consider a defendant's financial resources prior to the imposition of restitution. Denmark v. State, 588 So.2d 324, 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) and cases cited therein. Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1993), directs restitution only after the trial court considers the financial resources of the defendant, the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant, and such other factors which it deems appropriate. Thus, we remand with directions that the provision for restitution be stricken, or, alternatively, that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the ability of appellant to pay restitution. See McInnis v. State, 605 So.2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 613 So.2d 6 (Fla. 1992).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial's order and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FILMORE v. STATE
(Jul 17, 1995)