Gladfelter v. State, 618 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Gladfelter v. State, 618 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“because restitution was made an original condition of the probation, the court could properly determine the amount of restitution at a later date. we do not construe rule 3.800 as requiring this to be done within sixty days.”
20 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Connor v. State (fladistctapp, 2006-12-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Connor v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because restitution was made an original condition of the probation, the court could properly determine the amount of restitution at a later date. we do not construe rule 3.800 as requiring this to be done within sixty days.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Thomas Maddex
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
We do not construe rule 3.800 as requiring this to be done within sixty days.” Gladfelter v. State, 618 So.2d 1364, 1365 (Fla.1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Witthaus
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Gladfelter v. State, 618 So.2d 1364, 1365 (Fla.1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Sanderson
Fla. · 1993 · confidence medium
We do not construe rule 3.800 as requiring this to be done within sixty days." Gladfelter v. State, 618 So.2d 1364, 1365 (Fla. 1993).
cited Cited "see" State v. B.L.T.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gladfelter v. State, 618 So.2d 1364 (Fla.1993); State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993); L.O. v. State, 718 So.2d 155 (Fla.1998).
cited Cited "see" Arnett v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gladfelter v. State, 618 So.2d 1364 (Fla.1993); State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993); § 775.089(3)(b)(2), Fla.Stat. (1991).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Sebastian
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gladfelter v. State, 618 So.2d 1364 (Fla.1993) (as long as “restitution was made an original condition of the probation, the court could properly determine the amount of restitution at a later date.”); Fairweather v. State, 696 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Smith v. State, 589 So.2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“trial court may properly determine the amount of restitution at hearing subsequent to the sentencing date.”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Hiscox
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Gladfelter v. State, 618 So.2d 1364 (Fla.1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carla GLADFELTER, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
80508.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 27, 1993.
618 So. 2d 1364
Grimes.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Mallorye G. Cunningham, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Michelle A. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

GRIMES, Justice.

We review Gladfelter v. State, 604 So.2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), because of its conflict with State v. Martin, 577 So.2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 587 So.2d 1329 (Fla. 1991). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.

Gladfelter pled guilty to driving while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury and to a violation of probation for grand theft. She was sentenced to three years' incarceration followed by two years' probation. As conditions of her probation, she was to obtain fulltime employment within sixty days of her release and to pay restitution. Approximately fifteen months later, after her release from prison, a hearing was held at which she was ordered to pay restitution totalling $5,896.72 to three health-care providers who treated the injured victim.

On appeal, Gladfelter contended that it was error to establish the amount of restitution beyond sixty days after the sentence was imposed. The district court of appeal rejected this contention, reasoning that as long as the requirement to pay restitution was included in the sentence, setting the actual amount of restitution even beyond sixty days was permissible. The court acknowledged conflict with State v. Martin which had held on similar facts that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) precluded the entry of an order[*1365] determining restitution more than sixty days after sentencing.

We agree with the court below. Because restitution was made an original condition of the probation, the court could properly determine the amount of restitution at a later date. We do not construe rule 3.800 as requiring this to be done within sixty days. Section 948.03(8), Florida Statutes (1989), authorizes the modification of the terms and conditions of probation at any time. This is not a case in which a new condition of probation was added. See Clark v. State, 579 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1991) (absent proof of a violation, the court cannot change an order of probation by enhancing the terms thereof).

We also see no objection to requiring the restitution to be paid to the health-care providers who treated the victim injured by Gladfelter's driving. Section 775.089(2), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that where an offense has resulted in bodily injury to a victim, a restitution order should be entered requiring the defendant to pay the costs of necessary medical and related services.

We disapprove State v. Martin to the extent that it conflicts with this opinion. We approve the decision of the court below.

It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.