IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.M., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A delinquent child may be ordered to pay restitution without a present ability to pay, but the payment commencement date must be tied to obtaining employment.
J.A.M. was ordered to pay $3,800.00 in restitution at $200.00 per month, commencing on a specific date. He appealed, arguing the court erred in not de…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Delinquent Child cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
J.A.M. has appealed a condition of community control, imposed in the order of disposition sentencing him for burglary, requiring him to “[m]ake restitution in the amount of $3,800.00 jointly and severally to the victim” at the rate of $200.00 per month commencing on July 15, 1991. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to determine that he has the present ability to pay the ordered restitution at the level required.
As to the exact issue raised by appellant, an unemployed or incarcerated delinquent child may nevertheless be ordered to pay restitution without a showing of present ability to pay. J.M.H. v. State, 589 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The court must only determine what the defendant may reasonably be expected to earn upon finding suitable employment and base the amount of restitution on those earnings. Here, based on past history, the $200 per month restitution imposed does not appear to exceed the amount the child could reasonably be expected to pay or make. § 39.-054(1)(a)2, Fla.Stat. (1989).
However, J.M.H. also held that, in these cases, the condition to pay restitution should make clear that the obligation to pay begins upon the child’s obtaining earn ings from employment that will permit him to comply with the condition. J.M.H. at 396. Here, the condition mandates the commencement of restitution payments on a date certain (July 15, 1991), whether or not J.A.M. has obtained employment. Therefore, while we affirm the condition of restitution imposed by the trial court, we remand with directions to strike the date certain established for commencement of the payment, and to substitute language providing that payments are to commence upon J.A.M.’s obtaining employment, which he must make all reasonable efforts to obtain.
JOANOS, C.J., ZEHMER and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.J. v. State, 677 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…for a child placed on community control “for the purpose of fostering ... compliance with ... restitution and community service.” A court may order an unemployed child to pay restitution without a showing of present ability to pay. J.A.M. v. State, 601 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 613 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1992). The court must only determine what the child may reasonably be expected to earn upon finding suitable employment and base the amount of restitution on those earnings. Id.; see R.F. v. State, 54…
-
M.W.G. v. State, 945 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…nstead, the court must determine what the child may reasonably be expected to earn upon finding suitable employment and must base the restitution amount on those expected earnings. R.D.S., 844 So. 2d at 721; A.J., 677 So. 2d at 938; J.A.M. v. State, 601 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). When no evidence of what the child could reasonably be expected to earn is presented at the restitution hearing, the trial court cannot make a finding on this issue. See A.J., 677 So. 2d at 938; see also N.C. v. State, 774 So. 2…
-
R.D.S. v. State, 844 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…appeal that the trial court erred in imposing restitution without determining his ability to pay. An unemployed or incarcerated delinquent child may be ordered to pay resti [*721] tution without a showing of present ability to pay. J.A.M. v. State, 601 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The court must only determine what the child may reasonably be expected to earn upon finding suitable employment and base the amount of restitution on those earnings. § 985.231(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001); A.J. v. State, 677 So. 2d…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kervin Keaton v. Dugger, 589 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- In the Interest of J.M.H. v. State, 589 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)