WILLIAM STEWART, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, 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 appellate court affirmed the parole commission's decision to apply failure to make restitution as an aggravating factor in setting Stewart's presumptive parole release date, holding that restitution failure is distinguishable from the robbery offense characteristic used in the matrix calculation.
Failure to make restitution is a permissible aggravating factor in parole release calculations even when robbery is the offense characteristic in the matrix, because restitution is not an element of the robbery offense itself.
[1] Failure to make restitution is a permissible aggravating factor in parole release calculations distinct from the offense characteristic used in the matrix, where restitut…
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 intelligenceStewart, imprisoned at Avon Park Correctional Institution, pleaded guilty to robbery in which he personally took a large amount of money from a bank t…
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 Aggravating Factors In Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Stewart, a prisoner at Avon Park Correctional Institution, appeals from a commission decision that established his presumptive parole release date. Stewart argues that because the commission is prohibited from applying as aggravating circumstances any factors that are used in arriving at the matrix time range, Section 947.165(1), Florida Statutes (1979), the commission erred by scoring his matrix time range with “robbery” as the offense characteristic and then applying the following aggravating factor: “Large amount of cash stolen by threat of weapon was never recovered.”
The record reflects that Stewart pled guilty in connection with a robbery in which he personally took a large amount of money from a bank teller. Because this indicates that returning the money was, at one point, within Stewart’s knowledge and ability, the commission did not err in considering his failure to make restitution as an aggravating factor. See Bizzigotti v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 410 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); White v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 394 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Fla.Admin.Code Rule 23-19,03(l)(c)(l). We note that failure to make restitution is not an element of robbery. § 812.13(1), Fla.Stat. (1979). Cf. Bell v. State, 394 So. 2d 979 (Fla.1981).
Accordingly, the commission’s action is affirmed.
MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bell v. State, 394 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 1981)
- Bizzigotti v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 410 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- White v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 394 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)