DELBERT E. EPPERLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Delbert Epperley appealed his restitution sentence imposed as a condition of probation for attempted sexual battery and indecent assault against three minor girls. The court reversed the $10,000 restitution amount per victim, holding that the trial court failed to comply with statutory requirements for establishing victim loss by sworn evidence and preponderance of the evidence standard.
The court reversed the restitution orders as to amount, holding that the prosecutor bears the burden of producing sworn victim statements and demonstrating by preponderance of the evidence the amount of victim loss. On remand, the trial court must make specific findings regarding the amount of restitution, appellant's ability to pay, and the method of payment.
[1] A prosecutor bears the burden of producing sworn victim's statements and demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, the amount of victim loss to support restituti…
[2] A trial court must make findings to support the amount of restitution, the defendant's ability to pay, and the method of payment.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the prosecutor has the burden of producing sworn victim's statements and demonstrating, by the preponderance of the evidence, the amount of victim loss”
Establishes the statutory burden of proof for restitution amounts, requiring sworn evidence rather than unsworn estimates
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant committed crimes of attempted sexual battery and indecent assault involving three girls ages eleven, ten, and eight. Appellant admitted to s…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Indecent Assault cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s crimes of attempted sexual battery and indecent assault involved three girls, ages eleven, ten and eight. As part of his plea, appellant agreed to an upward departure sentence. Appellant’s guideline scoresheet reflected a recommended sentence of nine to twelve years. As to the attempted sexual battery count, the trial court sentenced appellant to fifteen years of incarceration followed by a fifteen-year probation term. As to the four indecent assault counts, appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of fifteen years for each count. As a special condition of probation, the trial court ordered appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $10,000 to each of the three victims. In assessing these costs, the trial court examined the victim impact statement of each child, heard the testimony of the mother of one of the victims, and took note of appellant’s financial affidavit.
The amount of restitution and required manner of payment being the issues on appeal, there is no question in our minds of appellant’s responsibility for the children’s psychological expenses under sections 775.-089(1) and 775.089(2), Florida Statutes (1989). Appellant admitted to sexual contact with the private areas of all three victims, and we believe the record supports conclusions of bodily injury and causation.
The figure of $10,000 was not “pulled out of the air” in the sense that one victim’s unsworn statement showed an estimated expense of $8,000 for psychological counseling. There was no evidence before the court, however, to support that amount; and the prosecutor has the burden of producing sworn victim’s statements and demonstrating, by the preponderance of the evidence, the amount of victim loss. Neither of the other victims provided evidence of expense or loss. We therefore reverse the restitution orders as to the amount, and the trial court shall require compliance with the statute on remand.
As for appellant’s ability to pay, there was ample evidence of the financial plight the defendant’s crimes had occasioned his family. On remand, the trial court is requested to make findings to support the amount of restitution, the ability of appellant to pay, and the method of payment.
HERSEY, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of F.A. v. State, 616 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…DCA 1991); Boykin v. State, 541 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Thomas v. State, 517 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Further, there was no evidence of monetary loss. See Cheatham v. State, 593 So. 2d 270, 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Epperley v. State, 568 So. 2d 1336, 1337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). As to the fee for the public defender, there was neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard. See Smiley v. State, 590 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). No motion was filed for imposition of fees against appellant.…