Summary
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed a restitution order entered after Linda Weinreber Barker pleaded no contest to fraudulent use of a credit card and exploitation of an elderly person. The court affirmed the $3,005.71 restitution award because competent substantial evidence supported the victim's losses, but reversed and remanded the five percent surcharge because no fine had been imposed. The court held that Barker preserved the surcharge issue through a Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion.
Holdings
- The restitution award was supported by competent substantial evidence because the victim testified that Barker drafted the checks without consent and that the payments did not benefit the victim, and copies of the checks showed Barker's handwriting and signature.
- The trial court improperly assessed the five-percent surcharge because it did not impose a fine, and the surcharge was not authorized under the circumstances.
Questions Presented
- Whether competent substantial evidence supported the $3,005.71 restitution award.
- Whether the trial court improperly assessed a five-percent surcharge when it imposed no fine.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (9)
- Davis v. State, 244 So. 3d 374, 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)(followed)
- Soriano v. State, 968 So. 2d 112, 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)(followed)
- Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913, 916 (Fla. 1997)(followed)
- Henry v. State, 840 So. 2d 1170, 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(distinguished)
- Brewster v. State, 25 So. 3d 99, 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)(followed)
- Bartolone v. State, 327 So. 3d 331, 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)(followed)
- Anderson v. State, 229 So. 3d 383, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)(followed)
- Jackson v. State, 296 So. 3d 549, 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)(followed)
- Osterhoudt v. State, 214 So. 3d 550, 551 (Fla. 2017)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…