History
  • No items yet
midpage
Mallard v. State
609 So. 2d 178
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1992
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

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 re-sentencing.

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

Case Details

Case Name: Mallard v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Dec 18, 1992
Citation: 609 So. 2d 178
Docket Number: No. 92-453
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.