Opinion ID: 2550043
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Applicable Statutory Provisions Regarding Restitution

Text: Under the statutory scheme, there are three potential proceedings regarding restitution: (1) when the trial court assesses and orders restitution (§ 775.089(1), (6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011)); (2) when the State or the victim attempts to enforce the restitution order (§ 775.089(5), (6)(b), Fla. Stat.); and (3) if the defendant is placed on probation, when the trial court considers revoking probation based on the defendant's failure to pay restitution as ordered (§§ 948.032, 948.06(5), Fla. Stat. (2011)). At the outset, it is important to consider that the defendant's financial resources or ability to pay does not have to be established when the trial court assesses and imposes restitution. To the contrary, section 775.089(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), provides: The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense. A trial court is required to order restitution in addition to any punishment unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to do so. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). The court is also required to make payment of restitution a condition of probation in accordance with section 948.03, Florida Statutes (2011). That section, entitled Terms and conditions of probation, states that the trial court shall make restitution a condition of probation, unless it determines that clear and compelling reasons exist to the contrary. § 948.03(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Further, under both sections 775.089(1)(b)1. and 948.03(1)(f), if the court does not order restitution or orders restitution of only a portion of the damages ... it shall state on the record in detail the reasons therefor. Prior to the current version of the statute, which has been in effect since 1995, the trial court was affirmatively required to consider the defendant's financial resources when imposing restitution: The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense, the financial resources of the defendant, the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate. § 775.089(6), Fla. Stat. (1993) (emphasis added). In 1995, the Legislature amended the restitution statute to require consideration of a defendant's financial resources only at the time of enforcement, not imposition. See ch. 95-160, § 1, Laws of Fla. When amending the statute in 1995, the Legislature stated, among other things, that the act amending the statute was imposing liability for court costs and attorney's fees upon defendant when civil enforcement of restitution order is necessary; providing for review at such time of the defendant's financial resources by the criminal court. Ch. 95-160, title, Laws of Fla. The statute as amended now provides: (6)(a) The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense. (b) The criminal court, at the time of enforcement of the restitution order, shall consider the financial resources of the defendant, the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his or her dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate. § 775.089(6), Fla. Stat. (2011). In other words, the Legislature shifted consideration of the financial resources of the defendant to the time of any enforcement of the restitution order and sent a clear message that at the time of the determination of the amount of restitution, the trial court should consider only the victim's loss in imposing restitution. Thus, since 1995, the trial court has been required to consider the defendant's financial resources when a restitution order is being enforcednot when restitution is being imposed. See State v. Shields, 31 So.3d 281, 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ([A]bility to pay the amounts ordered is a factor to be considered at the time of enforcement, not at imposition.); Owens v. State, 679 So.2d 44, 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) ([A] defendant's ability to pay is to be considered only when there is an attempt to enforce the restitution order.); Nieves v. State, 678 So.2d 468, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) ([E]ffective May 8, 1995, section 775.089(6) was amended to provide that financial resources and ability to pay restitution shall be considered at the time of enforcement of a restitution order, rather than at the time restitution is ordered.); cf. Banks v. State, 732 So.2d 1065, 1069-70 (Fla.1999) (The [district] court added: `[T]he trial court made no finding of Banks' ability to pay restitution, as we [have] held to be necessary ....' [ State v. Banks, 712 So.2d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).] This was error.... [A] defendant's ability to pay restitution is a nonissue when the court is weighing the need for restitution versus the need for imprisonment. Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1995), provides that ability to pay shall be considered at the time of enforcement of a restitution ordernot at the time when the court is weighing the respective needs.). [3] An enforcement proceeding arises when either the State or the victim seek to enforce the order. Section 775.089(5) provides: An order of restitution may be enforced by the state, or by a victim named in the order to receive the restitution, in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action. § 775.089(5), Fla. Stat. (2011); see also § 960.001(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (2011) (Law enforcement agencies and the state attorney shall inform the victim of the victim's right to request and receive restitution pursuant to s. 775.089 or s. 985.437, and of the victim's rights of enforcement under ss. 775.089(6) and 985.0301 [ [4] ] in the event an offender does not comply with a restitution order.). A trial court is required to consider the defendant's financial resources during an enforcement proceeding. Section 775.089(6)(b) requires the trial court, at the time of the enforcement of the restitution order, to consider the financial resources of the defendant, the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his or her dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate. § 775.089(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes, discusses the applicable burdens: Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence. The burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense is on the state attorney. The burden of demonstrating the present financial resources and the absence of potential future financial resources of the defendant and the financial needs of the defendant and his or her dependents is on the defendant. The burden of demonstrating such other matters as the court deems appropriate is upon the party designated by the court as justice requires. However, it is noteworthy that the resolution of the issue is only by the preponderance of the evidence, and in enforcement proceedings, the statute does not impose a higher burden on the defendant to demonstrate his or her financial resources even though his or her liberty is not at stake. Although all orders of restitution may be enforced through civil enforcement proceedings, if a defendant is placed on probation, restitution is required to be ordered as a condition of probation. We thus turn to the statutes that govern restitution as a condition of probation, which is where the probationer's liberty may be affected by the failure to pay. For a defendant placed on probation, any restitution ordered under s. 775.089 shall be a condition of the probation. § 948.032, Fla. Stat. (2011). If the defendant fails to comply with the order, the court may revoke probation. Id. The probationer's financial resources are considered when the trial court is determining whether to revoke probation. Significantly, section 948.032, Florida Statutes, provides: In determining whether to revoke probation, the court shall consider the defendant's employment status, earning ability, and financial resources; the willfulness of the defendant's failure to pay; and any other special circumstances that may have a bearing on the defendant's ability to pay. Id. This statute was enacted in 1984, [5] shortly after Bearden was decided. Section 948.06, Florida Statutes, the statute at issue in this case, governs probation revocation proceedings. Subsection (5) of that statute specifically addresses probation revocation when a probationer has failed to pay restitution and places the burden on the probationer to assert and demonstrate inability to pay by clear and convincing evidence: In any hearing in which the failure of a probationer or offender in community control to pay restitution or the cost of supervision as provided in s. 948.09, as directed, is established by the state, if the probationer or offender asserts his or her inability to pay restitution or the cost of supervision, it is incumbent upon the probationer or offender to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he or she does not have the present resources available to pay restitution or the cost of supervision despite sufficient bona fide efforts legally to acquire the resources to do so. If the probationer or offender cannot pay restitution or the cost of supervision despite sufficient bona fide efforts, the court shall consider alternate measures of punishment other than imprisonment. Only if alternate measures are not adequate to meet the state's interests in punishment and deterrence may the court imprison a probationer or offender in community control who has demonstrated sufficient bona fide efforts to pay restitution or the cost of supervision. § 948.06(5), Fla. Stat. (2011). This provision in the statute was added in 1984 as section 948.06(4). See ch. 84-337, § 3, Laws of Fla. The provision remains substantively the same today as when it was enacted. [6]