VERNON BASS, 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.
Bass appealed his conviction for grand theft, challenging a probation condition requiring restitution to a victim in a nolle prossed case that was not part of his plea bargain. The court reversed the restitution condition, holding that restitution for an unrelated or nolle prossed case requires the defendant's acknowledgment and consent as part of the plea agreement.
The court held that requiring restitution for an unrelated or nolle prossed case is appropriate only if the defendant acknowledged the theft and agreed to make restitution as part of the plea bargain. Absent such acknowledgment and consent, the court is precluded from requiring restitution for other cases or counts that have been nolle prossed.
[1] A court may not require a defendant to make restitution for a nolle prossed case as a condition of probation unless the defendant acknowledges the theft and agrees to mak…
[2] Restitution ordered as a condition of probation must relate to the specific crime for which the defendant was convicted, absent a specific agreement to the contrary.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“requiring restitution for an unrelated case would only be appropriate if the defendant acknowledged the theft and agreed to make restitution, all as part of the plea bargain”
Establishes the legal standard for when restitution may be imposed for unrelated or nolle prossed cases—it requires defendant consent and acknowledgment as part of the plea agreement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBass was charged with grand theft of citrus fruit worth more than $20,000 from Hubert Graves Packing Company. As part of plea negotiations, Bass plead…
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
DOWNEY, Judge.
This is a timely appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence of 364 days in jail, to be followed by ten years of probation, for the offense of grand theft, in violation of section 812.014(2)(a), Florida Statutes.
The appellant was charged by information with grand theft of more than $20,000 worth of citrus fruit from the Hubert Graves Packing Company, Inc. Pursuant to plea negotiations, the appellant pleaded nolo contendere to the charge, on the understanding that another information charging grand theft from Vero Citrus Sales, Inc., would be nolle prossed.
The appellant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to serve 364 days in the county jail, to be followed by ten years of probation, during which time he was to make restitution of $109,042.26 to Hubert Graves Packing Company and $94,179.77 to the grove, Vero Citrus Sales, Inc., (the victim in the nolle prossed case) at a rate of no less than $1,200 per year. This appeal was perfected to review the trial court’s order requiring, as a condition of probation, that appellant make restitution to Vero Citrus Sales, Inc., the victim in the case that was nolle prossed as a part of the plea bargain. Appellant contends that restitution should relate only to the specific crime for which he was convicted and that crime involved only Hubert Graves Packing Company.
Restitution to Vero Citrus Sales, Inc., was not part of the plea bargain. In fact at the time the plea was presented to the court appellant’s attorney advised the court that the State was not seeking restitution in the Vero Citrus case because it was the subject of civil litigation. It appears the trial judge simply decided to require restitution for the nolle prossed case also.
We held in Crowder v. State, 334 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) that requiring restitution for an unrelated case would only be appropriate if the defendant acknowledged the theft and agreed to make restitution, all as part of the plea bargain. Absent such acknowledgment and consent the cases, including our own, seem to hold the court is precluded from requiring restitution for other cases or counts which have been nolle prossed. See also W.N. v. State, 426 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
Accordingly, the condition of probation requiring restitution to Vero Citrus Sales, Inc., is reversed and the trial court is directed to eliminate it from the conditions of probation imposed.
HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of S.T.N. v. State, 474 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…event the court from including such conditions in a probation order where the defendant, as part of a plea bargain, acknowledges his responsibility for the other offenses and agrees to make restitution.” Ibid. We followed this rule in Bass v. State, 462 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), and voided a restitution provision which was not part of the plea bargain. We reasoned that absent the defendant’s acknowledgement of the theft in the unrelated case and his agreement to make restitution, all as part of a plea b…
-
Johnson v. State, 547 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…1988). Defendant may not be ordered to pay restitution for damages arising out of crimes for which she was acquitted. Simmons v. State, 484 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); see also Seiler v. State, 534 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Bass v. State, 462 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Defendant can, of-course, be ordered to make restitution for injury she inflicted directly on the victim during her actions as accessory after the fact. Defendant contends there were no such injuries, but that contention shoul…
-
Carter v. State, 640 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…(Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Burke v. State, 596 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Barkley v. State, 585 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Johnson v. State, 547 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Simmons v. State, 484 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Bass v. State, 462 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). But see Durand v. State, 590 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (“there was a sufficient nexus between the crime for which the appellants were convicted and the damages to the victim”); Springs v. State, 553 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crowder v. State, 334 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- W.N. v. State, 426 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)