J.S.H., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court held that a juvenile who committed grand theft must pay restitution for damage to the victim's boat, even though the charge was theft rather than criminal mischief, because the damages bore a significant relationship to the offense committed. The Court resolved a direct conflict between two District Courts of Appeal regarding whether restitution requires the offense charged to directly describe the damages.
The Court held that restitution is proper when damages bear a significant relationship to the offense charged, even if the offense charged does not directly describe the type of damage. The damages must result from the accused's actions necessary to perpetrate the crime, not from a separate offense.
[1] Restitution may be ordered for damages that bear a significant relationship to the convicted offense, even if the offense charged does not directly describe the damage.
[2] Damages are considered to be "caused by" an offense for restitution purposes when they result directly from actions necessary to perpetrate the crime.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The damages were the result of the theft as they resulted directly from petitioner's actions which were necessary to perpetrate his crime.”
Establishes the causal nexus between the grand theft charge and the boat damage
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile was found inside a victim's anchored motorboat cutting wires and loosening screws, resulting in a large hole in the boat's bottom and theft…
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 Delinquency Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
ALDERMAN, Justice.
We review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in J.S.H. v. State, 455 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), which the district court certified to be in direct conflict with W.N. v. State, 426 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The district court held that this juvenile’s offense bore a sufficiently significant relationship to the victim’s damages to support the trial court’s order that the juvenile pay restitution to the victim under section 39.11(l)(g), Florida Statutes (1983). We agree and approve the decision of the district court.
The victim anchored his twenty-one-foot motorboat to a bridge because it was running low on gas and a storm was approaching. Upon returning the next day, he found a person inside the boat cutting wires and loosening screws, and there was a large hole in the boat’s bottom. A repair shop estimated that it would cost $1,500 to fully restore the boat. Several items of property (i.e., cooler, fire extinguisher, compass, toolbox) had also been stolen from the boat; however, with the exception of an ammeter worth $50, all of the property was eventually recovered.
The state filed a petition for delinquency, charging petitioner with second-degree grand theft under section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1983). The trial court withheld adjudication and placed him in a community control program. Subsequently, the trial court held a hearing on the issue of restitution under section 39.11(l)(g), Florida Statutes (1983). The court determined the victim’s total damages to be $1,500 for repairing the boat and $50 for replacing the ammeter. Petitioner was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of one-half of $1,550.
On appeal, petitioner argued that restitution was proper only for the ammeter but not for damages to the boat itself because he had been charged only with the crime of grand theft and not with the crime of criminal mischief. Petitioner asserted that the damage to the victim’s boat was not “caused by his offense” as section 39.-ll(l)(g) requires. The district court disagreed, finding that the words “caused by his offense” do not mean that the offense charged must bear a direct relationship to the damages caused but rather that the damages bear a significant relationship to the crime charged. The court, however, certified direct conflict with W.N. v. State. In W.N., juveniles trespassed on school property and allegedly broke several thousand dollars worth of windows. They were originally charged with both criminal mischief and trespass. The criminal mischief charges were, however, nolle prossed. The court, nonetheless, ordered restitution to be paid for the broken windows. The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reversed the restitution order and stated there was no relationship between the offense charged (trespass) and the damages. The court reasoned that only the criminal mischief charge had a direct relationship to the damages, and, because it was nolle prossed, there was no legal foundation to impose restitution.
Petitioner contends, as he did in the district court, that the damages to the boat were not caused by his offense of grand theft. We disagree.
The damages were the result of the theft as they resulted directly from petitioner’s actions which were necessary to perpetrate his crime. The hole in the boat’s bottom resulted from a seat being removed from the boat, and all the wires were cut in order to facilitate the theft of engine parts. These actions were undertaken so that items could be stolen and were necessary for the theft to occur. Without these acts of destruction, some items simply could not have been stolen. It is not necessary that the offense charged describe the damage done in order to support a restitution order but only that the damage bear a significant relationship to the convicted offense.
Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur. SHAW, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (44 total)
-
State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1988)…an accident in which people were injured, and Williams’ hasty departure, form a causal chain linking the offense of leaving the scene to the injuries sustained in the accident. The state relies primarily on this Court’s decision in J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1985). In that case, a juvenile was convicted of theft for stealing radio equipment out of a boat which was damaged extensively in the course of the theft. The trial court ordered the defendant to pay restitution for damages caused to the boat…
-
Mansingh v. State, 588 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…rrest and the burglary (approximately six months), it cannot be said that there was a significant relationship between either the losses from the unrecovered items or damage done during the burglary and appellant’s crime. Of. [*638] J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1985); Rousseau v. State, 496 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), approved, 509 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1987); Lawson v. State, 498 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), review denied, 506 So. 2d 1042 (Fla.1987). Therefore, because neither prong of the above te…
-
J.O.S. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1997)…efendant is adjudicated delinquent or an adult defendant found guilty, restitution is an appropriate sanction for juveniles under section 39.054(l)(f) and a mandatory sanction for criminal defendants under section 775.089(l)(a). In J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1985), we reviewed the statutory language of sec [*1064] tion 39.11(l)(g), Florida Statutes (1983),8 a predecessor to section 39.054(l)(f), which also required damage to be caused by the charged offense before it would be subject to an order of…
Previewing 3 of 44 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- W.N. v. State, 426 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- J.S.H. v. State, 455 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)