BRUCE CARL STUTZMAN, I I
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court's restitution order must be reversed when it contains a mathematical error in calculating investigative fees, requiring correction and remand for entry of the proper amount.
[1] A restitution order containing a mathematical error in calculating investigative fees must be reversed and remanded for correction of the erroneous amount.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStutzman was convicted of organized scheme to defraud in an amount exceeding $50,000. The trial court imposed restitution that included a calculation …
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 Restitution Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
BRUCE CARL STUTZMAN, II, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2868 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed June 24, 2020. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Wayne M. Durden, Judge. Ita M. Neymotin, Regional Counsel, and Stacy L. Haverfield, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Second District, Fort Myers, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Peter Koclanes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. SLEET, Judge. Bruce Carl Stutzman challenges his conviction and sentence, including the imposition of restitution, for the offense of organized scheme to defraud in an amount more than $50,000. With regard to the restitution imposed, the State properly concedes that the trial court made a mathematical error in calculating the final amount.
In reducing the requested fee for the 150 employee hours spent investigating and calculating the amounts stolen from $85 an hour to $40 an hour, the trial court incorrectly included $6750 in the final restitution amount. The correct figure should have been $6000 ($40 x 150 hours). As such, we reverse the restitution order only to the extent that the trial court erroneously included $750 due to a mathematical error and remand for entry of a corrected order. We affirm without comment Stutzman's conviction and sentence in all other respects. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. KHOUZAM, C.J., and ATKINSON, J., Concur.