Court Opinion

ID: 9581930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:20:40.336991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:20.700190
License: Public Domain

Pope, Chief Judge,
concurring specially,
I fully concur with the majority opinion. With respect to the restitution issues discussed in Division 5,1 write separately only to point out that while the amount of the victim’s damages was clearly established at trial, “[i]t is not sufficient for the trial judge to consider only the amount of the victim’s damages. [Cit.] Pursuant to OCGA § 17-14-10, the court must also consider other factors, including ‘(1) The present financial condition of the offender and his dependents; (and) 1(2) The probable future earning capacity of the offender and his dependents. . . .’” Slater v. State, 209 Ga. App. 723, 725 (4) (434 SE2d 547) (1993). In the absence of the required hearing, the trial court was [unable to consider these other factors. Thus, this case must be re-pnanded as held by the majority.
*738Decided October 4, 1994.
John P. Howell, for appellant.
Alan A. Cook, District Attorney, Jeff B. Blandford, Anne M. Templeton, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.