GARCIA SMITH, 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.
The court held that restitution for items not connected to the charged offense or recovered by the victim is improper.
Appellant was charged with felony petit theft after being found with stolen computer disks. At sentencing, the trial court ordered restitution for a c…
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 Significant Relationship Test For Restitution cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
The appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for felony petit theft. We find no merit in his argument that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss. However, the appellant correctly argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay restitution.
The appellant was found in possession of stolen computer disks and a disk holder belonging to the law firm of Holland and Knight. He was charged with the theft of “certain computer equipment and disks.” He pled nolo contendere to felony petit theft. At sentencing, the trial court ordered the appellant to pay $3,767.32 in restitution for a computer and a printer which were taken during the burglary of Holland and Knight.
The trial court erred in ordering the appellant to pay $3,767.32 for a burglary for which he was not charged. See Johnson v. State, 599 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (error in ordering defendant to pay restitution for a burglary when defendant was charged with dealing in stolen property). The state did not show that the damage or loss of the computer and the printer bore a “significant relationship” to the felony petit theft. See Jones v. State, 480 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (to require the defendant to pay restitution, damage to the victim must bear a significant relationship to the offense for which the defendant was convicted), review denied, 488 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1986). The only stolen items the state connected to the appellant were disks and a disk holder, which were recovered. Since the appellant cannot be required to pay for property which the victim recovers, the trial court erred in ordering any restitution. See Jones, 480 So. 2d at 164-65.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chapman v. State, 733 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…hearing indicated that some of the stolen property which was determined to have been in Chapman’s possession was recovered, apparently undamaged. If this is the case, Chapman is not liable in restitution for the recovered items. See Smith v. State, 664 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). However, if the recovered property was damaged, the amount of restitution should be offset by the salvage value, if any, of that property. See Bowman v. State, 698 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Affirmed in part, reversed in par…
-
Johnston v. State, 870 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…(Supp.1994). However, the general rule is that restitution may not be ordered for any loss which resulted from an offense for which the defendant was not charged or convicted. Watson v. State, 699 So. 2d 835, 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Smith v. State, 664 So. 2d 1047, 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Faulkner v. State, 582 So. 2d 783, 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Denson v. State, 556 So. 2d 823, 824 [*879] (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Nonetheless, the general rule does not apply where there is a significant relationship between the…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 480 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- AVD Sec. Sys., Inc. v. RAI Credit Corp., 599 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)