EVERETT LEE BOWLING, 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.
This case examines whether restitution for injuries can be a condition of probation when those injuries are not directly caused by the specific offense for which probation was granted. The court affirmed the restitution order, finding it permissible under existing precedent.
Yes, restitution can be ordered as a condition of probation even if the injuries are not a direct element of the offense, as long as there is a significant relationship between the damage and the convicted offense.
[1] Restitution ordered as a condition of probation must bear a significant relationship to the convicted offense, but need not be a necessary element of the offense.
[2] Conditions of probation involving restitution are not limited to damage or loss having a direct relationship to the offense which results in probation.
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“the damage for which restitution is ordered must bear a significant relationship to the convicted offense, but need not be a necessary element of the offense.”
Establishes the legal standard for restitution conditions on probation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant pleaded no contest to failing to stop and render aid after an automobile accident. As a condition of his probation, he was ordered to pa…
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 As Condition Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
This case involves the question of whether restitution for injuries may be imposed as a condition of probation where the injuries were not directly related to the offense for which probation was ordered.
Appellant was involved in an automobile accident and charged with two counts of failure by one involved in an accident to stop and render aid to an injured person. (§§ 316.062(1), 316.027(1) and (2), Fla.Stat.) As a result of plea negotiations, appellant pled no contest to one count of failure by one involved in an accident to stop and render aid to an injured person, and was subsequently placed on probation. As a condition of probation, probationer was ordered to make restitution for the injuries sustained by the persons in the accident. On appeal he asserts that the restitution condition was improper because the injuries were not directly related to the offense for which he was placed on probation as one may be guilty of failing to stop and render aid to an injured person even though that person did not cause the injury.
In J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1985), the supreme court held that the damage for which restitution is ordered must bear a significant relationship to the convicted offense, but need not be a necessary element of the offense. This court has likewise held that conditions of probation involving restitution are not limited to damage or loss having a direct relationship to the offense which results in probation. See Roberts v. State, 467 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Rose v. State, 434 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), rev. den. 444 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1984); M.A.R. v. State, 433 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), rev. den. 441 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1983). In this case, there was no question that the probationer caused the accident and injuries as a result of his reckless driving. Cf. Fresneda v. State, 347 So. 2d 1021 (Fla.1977) (where the record did not clearly establish that defendant’s car caused the injuries),
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1988)…KOGAN, Justice. This is a petition to review Williams v. State, 505 So. 2d 478 (Fla.2d DCA 1987), in which the second district certified that its opinion was in conflict with Bowling v. State, 479 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). 505 So. 2d at 480. We have jurisdiction, Article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and we approve the opinion of the Second District Court of Appeal. Williams was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident resulting…1 / 2
-
Williams v. State, 505 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…ot 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. 472 So. 2d at 738 (Emphasis added). See also Bowling v. State, 479 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (condition of defendant’s probation which required him to pay restitution to victim for injuries sustained in automobile accident affirmed on basis of J.S.H. under facts similar to present case). It may appear, at first blush, t…
-
Triplett v. State, 709 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…MPOSE RESTITUTION FOR DAMAGES WHICH ARE RELATED TO BUT NOT CAUSED BY THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANT PLEADS? . The trial court herein interpreted the last paragraph in Williams to distinguish rather than reverse our opinion in Bowling v. State, 479 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), in which we held that if the evidence is clear that the defendant caused the accident which resulted in damages then he may be assessed the cost of restitution even if he is convicted only of the offense of leaving the scene of…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fresneda v. State, 347 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1977)
- J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1985)
- M.A.R. v. State, 433 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Rose v. State, 434 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Roberts v. State, 467 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)