BENNIE JENKINS, 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 grand theft conviction but reversed the worthless check conviction's restitution order because the trial court failed to determine the amount of loss and the defendant's ability to pay.
A trial court must determine the amount of loss and the defendant's ability to pay before imposing restitution for a worthless check conviction.
[1] A trial court must determine the amount of loss and the defendant's ability to pay before imposing restitution.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBennie Jenkins was convicted of grand theft of a firearm and obtaining property by worthless check. The trial court imposed restitution without statin…
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 Worthless Checks cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Bennie Jenkins, appeals his convictions for grand theft of a firearm and obtaining property by worthless check. Because the defendant failed to address his appellate arguments concerning the grand theft of a firearm charge to the trial court in a motion for judgment of acquittal, he did not preserve the issue for appellate review. See Hardman v. State, 584 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Johnson v. State, 478 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), appeal dismissed, 488 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1986); see generally, Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1982) (holding specific legal ground must be asserted as an objection, exception or motion before the trial court to be cognizable on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm the conviction without discussion.
With respect to the worthless check conviction, the trial court imposed restitution without stating the amount and the manner in which it was determined and without determining the defendant’s ability to pay. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to hold a hearing to determine the amount of the loss and the defendant’s ability to pay. See Williams v. State, 673 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with instructions.
PARKER, A.C.J., and FULMER and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1982)
- Darrel Michael Abbott v. State, 478 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Hardman v. State, 584 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- State of Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. Saunders, 673 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Williams v. State, 673 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)