# R.D.S. v. State

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 9, 2003 · 844 So. 2d 720

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7758955

## Case

- **Full name:** R.D.S. v. STATE of Florida
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** May 9, 2003
- **Citations:** 844 So. 2d 720; 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6748
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Kelly
- **Judges:** Covington, Kelly, Salcines
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7758955

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming portion of juvenile restitution order that required a seventeen-year-old, who was apparently not committed into custody, to pay $1635.29 in restitution at the rate of $25 per month but reversing the portion of the order that required payments to begin on July 1, 2002…
- observing that unemployed delinquent child may be ordered to pay restitution without a showing of present ability to pay, as long as court determines what the child may be expected to earn upon finding suitable employment
- affirming a $25 per month restitution order even though the juvenile was unemployed at the 6 time
- affirming a $25 per month restitution order even though the juvenile was unemployed at the time

## Opinion text

KELLY, Judge.
R.D.S. appeals the order requiring him to pay $1635.29 in restitution. We find no merit in his argument on appeal that the trial court erred in imposing restitution without determining his ability to pay. An unemployed or incarcerated delinquent child may be ordered to pay resti *721 tution without a showing of present ability to pay. J.A.M. v. State, 601 So.2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The court must only determine what the child may reasonably be expected to earn upon finding suitable employment and base the amount of restitution on those earnings. § 985.231(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001); A.J. v. State, 677 So.2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); J.M.H. v. State, 589 So.2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
The record reveals that at the May 6, 2002, restitution hearing, R.D.S.’s counsel informed the trial court that while R.D.S. was currently unemployed, he intended to get a job. Based upon this assertion, the trial judge ordered R.D.S. to pay $25 per month commencing on July 1, 2002. We cannot conclude that $25 per month exceeds the amount R.D.S., age seventeen at the time, could reasonably be expected to earn. See § 985.231(l)(a). Accordingly, the restitution imposed by the trial court is affirmed.
We find merit, however, in R.D.S.’s argument that the trial court erred in ordering payment of restitution to begin before he obtained employment. The restitution order provides that “[pjayments are to be made in installments of $25 per month beginning on July 1, 2002.” On remand, the trial court is directed to strike the date specified in the order for commencement of the payments, and order that payments be made once R.D.S. obtains suitable employment that will enable him to comply with the order, for which he must make all reasonable efforts to obtain. See L.J.H. v. State, 627 So.2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); J.A.M., 601 So.2d at 279 .
Affirmed; remanded with directions.
SALCINES and COVINGTON, JJ„ Concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7758955. Public record. Not legal advice.