EUCLIDES E. PERALTA, 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.
This case addresses the proper scope of restitution in a plea agreement where a defendant pleaded guilty to petit theft (a lesser included offense) after the state agreed to nolle pros more serious grand theft charges. The court held that restitution must be limited to the value of the property in the offense of conviction, though indirect losses such as vehicle damage may also be recoverable.
Restitution must be limited to $300, the maximum value of property that can constitute petit theft, even though the victim's actual losses exceeded that amount. However, restitution may also include indirect losses such as damage to the vehicle caused in effecting the theft, and the case was remanded for the trial court to determine the amount of such indirect losses.
[1] Restitution may only be ordered for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense.
[2] When a defendant pleads guilty to a lesser included offense of petit theft, restitution is limited to the value of items constituting petit theft, not exceeding the statu…
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“restitution may be ordered only for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense”
Establishes the statutory framework limiting restitution to losses caused by the offense of conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was charged with grand theft of stereo equipment and accessories (Count I) and grand theft of a vehicle (Count II). He agreed to plead guilt…
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 Nolle Prosequi cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is the appeal of a restitution order. On December 13, 1990, defendant was charged by information with grand theft of “[stereo] cassettes, [stereo] speakers, a vehicle bug screen and an equalizer” which had been stolen from the victim’s automobile (Count I) and grand theft of the victim’s automobile (Count II). Defendant agreed to plead guilty to the lesser included offense of petit theft, in exchange for the state’s agreement to nolle pros Count II. He also agreed to pay unspecified “restitution.”
At defendant’s restitution hearing, the victim testified that his uninsured losses due to the theft were $2,874.78. Among other things defense counsel argued that defendant could not be ordered to pay restitution in excess of $300, the maximum amount defined as petit theft in section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1989).
The state responded that there was no agreement “that if he pled to the petit theft that he would only be responsible for petit theft amount of restitution.” However, the state admitted that the reason it had agreed to the plea was because it was unable to prove the theft of either the vehicle or any items beyond those found in defendant’s possession. The court ordered restitution in the amount of $2,575.93, the lowest estimate of loss provided by the victim.
We reverse.
Pursuant to sections 775.089(1)(a) and 948.03(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1989), restitution may be ordered only for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense.
The evidence establishes the value of the items defendant was charged with stealing is well in excess of $300; however, because here the convicted offense was theft of items having a value of $300 or less, the maximum value of the items for which defendant can be ordered to pay restitution is also $300.
Accordingly, we quash the restitution order with instructions to limit restitution for the property stolen to $300.
However, because restitution can also include losses caused indirectly by theft, including damage done to the vehicle in effecting the theft of the items charged in Count I,1 and because we are unable to determine the amount of repair associated with those items, we remand for the trial court to make that determination and order the correct amount of restitution.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COBB, W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . Faulkner v. State, 582 So. 2d 783, 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blair v. State, 667 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…fendant could be ultimately convicted on the theft count, we would not be required to limit the amount of restitution to $300, the statutory limit for petit theft, because there is damage or loss caused indirectly by the theft, see Peralta v. State, 596 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), [*842] and there is damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the burglary, the conspiracy to commit burglary or the dealing in stolen property, see Bell v. State, 652 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), charges that, unlike…
-
Bell v. State, 652 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…burglary and theft. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the court was not required to limit the amount of restitution to $300, the statutory limit for petit theft, where there was other damage or loss caused indirectly by the theft, Peralta v. State, 596 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), or where there was damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the burglary. Appellant’s alternative argument (that the court should not, absent agreement by Appellant, determine the amount of restitution without a hearing w…
-
Mayer v. State, 632 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…reme Court has held that injuries com-pensed for by restitution must bear a significant relationship to the offense charged. State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla.1988). See also Bayer v. State, 597 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Peralta v. State, 596 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). In Williams, a defendant was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident with personal injuries. The supreme court held that Williams’ probation could not be conditioned on paying damages which arose out of the accident, becau…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Faulkner v. State, 582 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)