Summary
The Supreme Court of Florida addressed whether a trial court may establish a restitution payment schedule for an unemployed juvenile without conditioning payments on the juvenile obtaining employment. The court approved the Second District Court of Appeal's decision, holding that a payment schedule may be based on the juvenile's reasonably expected ability to earn upon obtaining suitable employment. The court disapproved the contrary First District decision to the extent it required payment to commence only after employment was obtained.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a trial court may set a restitution payment schedule for an unemployed juvenile.
- Whether the commencement date for juvenile restitution payments must be conditioned on the juvenile obtaining employment under sections 985.231 and 985.437, Florida Statutes.
Holdings
- A trial court may set a restitution amount and payment schedule for an unemployed juvenile based on what the juvenile and parent or guardian could reasonably be expected to pay or make upon the juvenile's obtaining suitable employment.
- Nothing in the juvenile restitution statute requires a trial court to condition the commencement of a restitution payment schedule on the juvenile obtaining employment; a court may set a commencement date certain after allowing a reasonable period to obtain employment.
- In a subsequent enforcement proceeding, the State must prove that the probationer willfully violated a substantial condition of probation; the juvenile's inability to obtain employment despite reasonable efforts is relevant at that stage.
Key quotations
“We conclude that the statute does not prohibit setting a date certain for restitution payments to begin. Rather, the operative language of the statute—"reasonably expected to pay or make"—appears to contemplate that restitution will be set based on what a juvenile could be reasonably expected to pay upon finding employment, not on the juvenile's current ability to pay.” (at 558-559)
“We conclude, however, that nothing in the juvenile restitution statute requires a trial court to condition the setting of a restitution payment schedule on the juvenile obtaining employment.” (at 560)
“Given the language of the juvenile restitution statute, the policies underpinning the statute, and the wide discretion generally afforded to judges in awarding restitution, we now conclude that a hard-and-fast rule prohibiting a judge from setting a commencement date for monthly payments of juvenile restitution and requiring that such payments can only be ordered contingent upon the juvenile actually obtaining employment is inappropriate.” (at 560)
Factual background
J.A.B. was adjudicated guilty of battery and placed on juvenile probation for one year. The trial court awarded the victim $1,479.09 in restitution and deferred payments until approximately six weeks after J.A.B.'s expected delivery date, then required payments of $50 per month. J.A.B. was unemployed, pregnant, attending high school, had never held a job, received government assistance, and had no disability preventing her from working after the baby's birth.
Procedural history
J.A.B. was adjudicated guilty of battery and placed on juvenile probation. The trial court ordered $1,479.09 in restitution and required monthly payments to begin on a date certain, despite J.A.B.'s unemployment. The Second District affirmed and certified conflict with J.A.M. v. State, which required commencement of restitution payments to be conditioned on obtaining employment. The Supreme Court of Florida approved the Second District's decision and disapproved J.A.M. to that extent.