THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DUDLEY COHN, 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.
Florida appeals the trial court's denial of restitution for victims of organized fraud. The appellate court reverses, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by relying on improper reasons—the victims' ability to pursue civil suits and the speculative nature of their investments—when Florida law mandates restitution absent clear and compelling reasons not to order it.
The trial court abused its discretion. Under Florida Statute § 775.089(1)(a), restitution must be ordered absent clear and compelling reasons not to do so. The ability to pursue civil recovery and the speculative nature of investments do not constitute legally sufficient reasons to deny restitution.
[1] A trial court must order restitution to victims for damages or loss caused by the defendant's offense, absent clear and compelling reasons not to do so.
[2] A victim's ability to obtain damages in a civil suit is not a legally sufficient reason to deny restitution in a criminal case.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Absent clear and compelling reasons not to do so, a trial court must order a defendant to make restitution to his or her victims for damages or loss caused by the defendant's offense.”
Establishes the mandatory nature of restitution under Florida law and the high bar for denying it.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDudley Cohn was convicted by jury of organized fraud. At sentencing, the State requested full restitution to victims. The trial court held an evidenti…
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 Organized Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
The State of Florida appeals from the denial of a request for restitution. We reverse.
At trial, the jury convicted Dudley Cohn (“the defendant”) of organized fraud. At sentencing, the State requested that the defendant be ordered to pay full restitution to his victims. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing where two of the victims testified.
After hearing from the defendant and the victims, the trial court denied the State’s request for restitution. The trial court gave two reasons for its ruling, that: (1) the victims had or could obtain damages in civil suits; and (2) the victims’ losses resulted from gambling in speculative real estate investments.
On appeal, the State asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in denying restitution because neither of the reasons given is legally sufficient. The defendant contends the trial court properly denied restitution. We agree with the State.
Absent clear and compelling reasons not to do so, a trial court must order a defendant to make restitution to his or her victims for damages or loss caused by the defendant’s offense. § 775.089(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). The statute further provides that a restitution order will not bar any subsequent civil recovery, although the amount of restitution shall be set off against such recovery. § 775.089(8). Thus, this Court has held that “[i]t is not permissible to deny restitution because the victim intends to file, or has actually filed, a civil lawsuit for the same loss.” State v. Hitchmon, 678 So.2d 460, 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
Here, the trial court abused its discretion in denying restitution based on the victims’ ability to file civil actions to recover their losses. Further, the jury *612verdict finding the defendant guilty of organized fraud determined what caused the victims’ loss. Therefore, the trial court improperly considered the speculative nature of the land transactions in denying restitution.
Accordingly, we reverse the denial of restitution, and remand for further proceedings to determine the amount of restitution in accordance with the statute. § 775.089(6)(b) (“The criminal court ... shall consider the financial resources of the defendant, the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his or her dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate.”).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.