NATINA SULLIVAN, 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.
The court affirmed the probation and restitution orders in part but remanded for modification of specific conditions and amounts.
Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to grand theft and was ordered to pay restitution and abide by probation conditions. She appealed these orders.…
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 Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On this appeal of her sentences pursuant to pleas of nolo contendere to two counts of grand theft, Natina Sullivan challenges the orders imposing probation and restitution on several grounds. We affirm in all respects but the following, as to which we remand this cause for further proceedings.
The probation order states as condition # 7 that “You will work diligently at a lawful occupation and support any dependents to the best of your ability, as directed by your probation officer.” The state agrees that this condition should be modified to read that upon release from prison, Appellant is required to seek gainful employment. Evans v. State, 608 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
The order requires Appellant to pay as restitution a total of $85,133.91, plus 12% interest, from February 24,1992 (the date of the final judgment), which includes the funds Appellant allegedly took from her employer’s trust account, interest the employer paid on loans taken to repay those funds, research costs and accountant fees. It also orders Appellant to begin making restitution payments within 60 days of her release from prison “in an amount agreed upon between the defendant and her probation officer.”
The restitution order must be modified to reflect a reduction in the stated amount of restitution by $3,500.00, which represents the amount of Appellant’s surety bond that the circuit court ordered to be paid to the victim. The state concedes error on this point. The restitution order also must be modified to reflect that upon Appellant’s release from incarceration, the probation officer may recommend a monthly payment schedule, which must be approved by the court. Ballance v. State, 447 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
ZEHMER, C.J., and MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kirkland v. State, 666 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…probation because a down-turn in the economy could prevent its completion. Evans v. State, 608 So. 2d 90, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). A more appropriate condition would be to require the probationer to “seek gainful employment.” Id.; Sullivan v. State, 630 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The portion of condition (8) that requires Kirkland to “work diligently at a lawful occupation” must be modified to read, “seek gainful employment.” The portion of condition (8) that requires Kirkland to “support any dependents…
-
Capozzi v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Ballance v. State, 447 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Evans v. State, 608 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)