BRENDA SPRINGS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Brenda Springs was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon and accessory after the fact, but acquitted of attempted murder. She appealed a restitution order, arguing the victim's injuries were caused by the attempted murder charge of which she was acquitted, not the robbery. The court affirmed the restitution order, holding that the injuries were causally connected to the robbery.
The court affirmed the restitution order, holding that victim injuries inflicted during the perpetration of a robbery are causally related to the robbery itself and fall within the scope of restitution requirements under Florida Statutes section 775.089(1)(a), provided there is a significant relationship between the crime and the damages incurred.
[1] Restitution may be ordered when the victim's loss is caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense.
[2] A significant relationship must exist between the crime committed and the damages incurred for restitution to be appropriate.
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“Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), provides that an order of restitution is appropriate when the loss to the victim is caused "directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense."”
Establishes the statutory basis for restitution orders in Florida.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrenda Springs was convicted by jury of robbery with a deadly weapon and being an accessory after the fact to a co-defendant's offenses. She was acqui…
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.
BASKIN, Judge.
The subject of Brenda Springs’ appeal is a trial court order requiring her to pay restitution. We affirm. Brenda Springs was found guilty by a jury and convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon and of being an accessory after the fact to a co-defendant’s offenses; she was acquitted of the charge of attempted first degree murder. During a hearing to determine the amount of restitution to be imposed, defendant Springs objected on the ground that the victim’s injuries were incurred during the attempted murder of which she was acquitted, and not during the robbery. The trial court disagreed and ordered her to pay restitution for the victim’s injuries pursuant to section 775.-089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1985).
Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), provides that an order of restitution is appropriate when the loss to the victim is caused “directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense.” As a prerequisite to the entry of such an order, the Florida Supreme Court requires the existence of a significant relationship between the crime committed and the damages incurred. State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla.1988); J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1985).
Analyzing the facts before us, we conclude that although the victim’s injuries could have been sustained during the attempted murder, her wounds were inflicted during the course of the robbery. Robbery is “the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another by force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.” § 812.081, Fla.Stat. (1985). Victim injury is causally related to the use of force or violence. Furthermore, the crime of robbery is not complete upon the seizure of the money, Jefferson v. State, 128 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1961); absent a break in the chain of circumstances, the injury sustained by the victim during the robbery is a result of the robbery. See Campbell v. State, 227 So. 2d 873 (Fla.1969), petition dismissed, 400 U.S. 801, 91 S.Ct. 7, 27 L.Ed.2d 33 (1970); see also Mills v. State, 407 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Jones v. State, 502 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); State v. Hacker, 510 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The evidence demonstrates that the victim’s injuries were inflicted during the perpetration of the robbery. Accordingly, we find no error in the imposition of restitution.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gourley v. State, 590 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…9(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989). There must be a significant relationship between the crime committed and the damage to the victim in order for a restitution order to be appropriate. Mansingh v. State, 588 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Springs v. State, 553 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989). Where the evidence does not establish a significant relationship between the crime and the loss suffered, a restitution order must be overturned. Faulkner v. State, 582 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). In the instant case, the i…
-
Carter v. State, 640 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…ass 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 1989) ("although the victim’s injuries could have been sustained during the attempted murder, her wounds were inflicted during the course of the robbery”).…
-
Carter v. State, 640 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…ass 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 1989) ("although the victim's injuries could have been sustained during the attempted murder, her wounds were inflicted during the course of the robbery”).…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1988)
- Campbell v. State, 227 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1969)
- J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1985)
- Mills v. State, 407 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Campbell v. Florida, 400 U.S. 801 (U.S. 1970)
- Blount v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 400 U.S. 801 (U.S. 1970)
- Jones v. State, 502 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Davis v. The Honorable Constance R. Nutaro, 510 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- State v. Hacker, 510 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)