I.M. v. State, 955 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). · Go Syfert
I.M. v. State, 955 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Cited for
At page 1164 Juvenile right to be present at restitution hearings5 citing cases“a juvenile has a constitutional right to be present at hearings to determine the imposition and amount of restitution absent a voluntary and intelligent waiver of that right.”3 citing courts quote it · 4 listed here
  • J.A. v. State, 46 So. 3d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).published
    “A juvenile has a constitutional right to be present at hearings to determine the imposition and amount of restitution absent a voluntary and intelligent waiver of that right.” I.M. v. State, 955 So.2d 1163, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
  • C.Y. v. State, 989 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).published 2 cites
    “A juvenile has a constitutional right to be present at hearings to determine the imposition and amount of restitution absent a voluntary and intelligent waiver of that right.” I.M. v. State, 955 So.2d 1163, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (citin…
  • I.L.G. v. State, 43 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).published 2 cites
    See I.M. v. State, 955 So.2d 1163, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
  • Windh v. State, 113 So. 3d 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).published
    Hence, “ ‘unless the State can show that a defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present at his restitution hearing, it is error to proceed in his absence.’ ” Thar v. State, 8 So.3d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (quoti…
At page 1165 waiver, he is entitled to a new restitution hearing. See M.W.G., 945 So.2d at 600; T.A.S., 892 So.2d at 1235. The trial court ordered the future payment of…1 citing caseopening of page *1165 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • L.W. v. State, 163 So. 3d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).published
    The cases discussing and interpreting section 985.437 universally require the trial court to make a factual finding that the child and/or his parent or guardian could reasonably be expected to pay the amount of the loss at the time the res…
I.M., a Child, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
1D06-6322.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Apr 26, 2007.
Published opinion
955 So. 2d 1163
2007 WL 1213707
2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 6300
Per Curiam.
Published

[*1164] Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and David P. Gauldin, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Judy Bone, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this juvenile delinquency case, appellant challenges a restitution order, contending that the trial court erred (1) in holding a restitution hearing in appellant's absence and (2) ordering restitution without determining the amount appellant might reasonably be expected to pay. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the restitution order and remand for a new restitution hearing.

Appellant was absent from one hearing during which, over an objection by appellant's counsel, the trial court heard testimony and determined the amount of restitution. A juvenile has a constitutional right to be present at hearings to determine the imposition and amount of restitution absent a voluntary and intelligent waiver of that right. E.g., M.W.G. v. State, 945 So.2d 597, 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); T.A.S. v. State, 892 So.2d 1233, 1234-35 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); J.B. v. State, 646 So.2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Because appellant was not present and there is nothing to suggest a voluntary and intelligent[*1165] waiver, he is entitled to a new restitution hearing. See M.W.G., 945 So.2d at 600; T.A.S., 892 So.2d at 1235.

The trial court ordered the future payment of restitution without allowing appellant to present evidence as to his future ability to pay or making an express finding regarding future ability to pay. This, too, was error. While a court may order an unemployed or incarcerated delinquent child to pay restitution without a showing of present ability to pay, it must determine what the child might reasonably be expected to earn upon finding suitable employment and base the amount of restitution on those anticipated earnings. E.g., M.W.G., 945 So.2d at 601; R.D.S. v. State, 844 So.2d 720, 720-21 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); A.J. v. State, 677 So.2d 935, 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); J.A.M. v. State, 601 So.2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); J.M.H. v. State, 589 So.2d 394, 395-96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

We reverse the restitution order and remand with directions that the trial court conduct a new restitution hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

ALLEN, WEBSTER, and BENTON, JJ., concur.