Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

624 So. 2d 856

Docket No. 93-0068.

McInnis v. State

James McINNIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 6, 1993.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1993-10-06

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently August 1994

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“in case the appellant should win the lottery”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Istvanditsch v. State

Relies on McInnis v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-10-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and David McPherrin, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sarah B. Mayer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4In a previous appeal of appellant's conviction and sentence, this court affirmed the conviction and sentence with the exception that the trial court was directed on remand to either strike the provision for restitution or grant an evidentiary hearing to determine appellant's ability to pay. McInnis v. State,605 So.2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied,613 So.2d 6 (Fla. 1992). On remand, the trial court found the value of his property to be $23,000; that appellant had no present ability to pay; and entered a civil judgment for restitution in favor of the victim "in case the appellant should win the lottery."

¶5We reverse the new order of restitution which leaves the conviction and sentences as originally imposed without any provision for restitution since there is no support for same.

¶6REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶7GUNTHER and PARIENTE, JJ., and DOWNEY, JAMES C., Senior Judge, concur.

/624/so2d/856 · .json · Public domain