RANDALL K. MOTON, 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.
A restitution order for unrecovered property must be reversed if there is no evidence linking the defendant to that property beyond the offense of dealing in stolen goods.
Appellant was convicted of dealing in stolen property and ordered to pay restitution for unrecovered items stolen during the same burglary. There was …
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 Dealing In Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal of an order imposing restitution. We reverse for the following reasons.
Appellant was convicted of dealing in stolen property in violation of Section 812.-019, Florida Statutes. The trial court entered a restitution order directing him to pay $1,043.28 for unrecovered property stolen during the same burglary that the property he was dealing in was stolen. There was no evidence that he was one of the actual burglars or was linked to the unre-covered property in any other way.
Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes, authorizes restitution “for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense.” Although the loss for which restitution is ordered need not be directly encompassed within the legal elements of an offense, there must be a significant relationship between the loss and the offense. J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1985).
In Cliburn v. State, 510 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), the defendant was convicted of dealing in stolen property but not of the underlying burglary. Cliburn reversed a restitution order for unrecov-ered property taken during the burglary, because there was no evidence that Cliburn was ever criminally involved in the commission of the burglary or was otherwise connected to the unrecovered property. Although Jones v. State, 480 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), approved restitution for unrecovered items taken in a burglary but not found in Jones’s possession, Jones is distinguishable because the evidence there strongly suggested Jones was involved in the underlying burglary. This established the significant causal relationship necessary under J.S.H. As in Cliburn, that relationship is missing sub judice.
REVERSED.
BOOTH, WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mansingh v. State, 588 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…g the burglary2 or the losses sustained from unrecov-ered items were caused directly or indirectly by appellant’s offense — grand theft. See Denson v. State, 556 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA), review dismissed, 562 So. 2d 347 (Fla.1990); Moton v. State, 554 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Hamm v. State, 403 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Finally, when one considers the actual crime charged (grand theft) and the lapse of time between appellant’s arrest and the burglary (approximately six months), it cannot be s…
-
Wilcox v. State, 579 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ip to the offense for which defendant stands convicted. In the instant case, the record fails to establish the necessary causal relationship between the loss suffered in the burglary and the offense for which appellant was convicted. Moton v. State, 554 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Denson v. State, 556 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), review dismissed, 562 So. 2d 347 (Fla.1990). Accordingly, the judgment and sentence in case 89-442, 89-455, and 89-469 are affirmed. The judgment in case 89-468 is affirmed,…
Authorities Cited
- J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1985)
- Cliburn v. State, 510 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Jones v. State, 480 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)