WALKER V. STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2005 LAWTON ROBERT WALKER, Appellant, vs. ** ** ** THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. CASE NO. 3D05-1423 ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 01-15512 ** Opinion filed November 23, 2005. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Kevin Emas, Judge. Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Goldstein, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Billie Jan Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General and Maria T. Armas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before GERSTEN, GREEN, and RAMIREZ, JJ. GREEN, J. Lawton Robert Walker appeals an order modifying a condition of probation. We affirm. Appellant pled guilty to one count of DUI manslaughter in exchange for a sentence of six years probation, 300 days in Dade County Jail, and payment of restitution to the victim s family for the later, victim s medical appeared appellant probation. and funeral in court expenses. for a Four report years regarding The probation officer informed the court that the insurance company had paid for the victim s funeral expenses and the family did not want restitution from appellant. The prosecutor orally moved to modify probation requesting that the court order company. appellant to pay restitution to the insurance The court granted the motion. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in modifying the probation to order payment of restitution to the insurance company under section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2001). not persuaded by this argument. We are As a threshold consideration, appellant agreed to pay restitution as part of his plea bargain. Changing the payee does not alter appellant s probation conditions in any way; appellant s obligation hasn t changed. Notwithstanding that fact, in Montalvo v. State, 705 So. 2d 984, 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), we affirmed an order awarding an insurance company restitution in the amounts it had paid to its insured, insurance the victim. company is Our sister subrogated courts to have the held rights that an of the victim/insured, Cyrus v. State, 712 So. 2d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th 2 DCA 1998), making the defendant responsible for restitution to the insurance company. See State v. Williams, 689 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); L.S. v. State, 593 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); M.E.I. v. State, 525 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Hence, we are not persuaded by appellant s argument that restitution to the insurance company under the statute is error. Moreover, we find that the court did discretion in modifying the probation order. not abuse its The court had no discretion but to order restitution under the statute. Kirby v. State, 863 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2003); Montalvo; L.S., 593 So. 2d at 297. The modification of the payee was ministerial, as restitution had been ordered as part of the original probation sentence. Affirmed. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
