ERIC LEON REEVES, 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.
Eric Leon Reeves appealed the restitution portion of his sentence imposed as a condition of probation after pleading guilty to uttering a forged instrument. The appellate court vacated the $500 restitution amount and remanded for a hearing to determine the actual damages caused by the defendant's specific criminal conduct, holding that restitution must bear a reasonable and causal relationship to the offense.
The court vacated the $500 restitution amount and remanded for the trial court to hold a hearing to determine only those losses suffered by the victim that bear a reasonable and causal relationship to Reeves' offense, as restitution must be limited to damages directly or indirectly caused by the defendant's criminal activity.
[1] Restitution ordered as a condition of probation must be for damages or losses caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense.
[2] Damages for which restitution is ordered must bear a reasonable relationship to the offense charged.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A defendant cannot be required to make payment in excess of the amount of damage the criminal conduct caused the victim.”
Establishes the fundamental limitation on restitution liability—it cannot exceed actual damages caused by the defendant's conduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReeves pleaded guilty to uttering a false or forged instrument involving a $40 check drawn on the victim's account. The trial court ordered $500 in re…
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 Special Conditions Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Eric Leon Reeves appeals that portion of his sentence which imposes a requirement of restitution of $500 as a special condition of probation. We vacate only that portion of the sentence setting the amount of restitution at $500 and remand to the trial court for a hearing to determine the amount of damages incurred by the victim that were caused by the defendant’s criminal activity.
Reeves entered.a plea of guilty to one count of uttering a false or forged instrument and, as a special condition of community control followed by probation, was ordered to pay restitution of $500 to Jacqueline Richardson. The name of the victim and the amount of the restitution were not included in the oral pronouncements at the sentencing hearing but were included in the subsequent written order. There is no dispute that restitution was ordered at the sentencing hearing, but the amount and the payee were not stated.
A presentence investigation (PSI), which recommended restitution in the amount of $500, was available to the trial court at the sentencing hearing. The PSI indicated that Reeves was arrested for having cashed a $40 check drawn on Richardson’s bank account. It further indicated that the victim told the investigator that someone had broken into one of her rental houses and stole a VCR and her checkbook. She was also quoted in the PSI as saying that Reeves and his cohorts took a VCR and wrote checks totaling $307.
There appears to be no relationship between Reeves’ offense and the victim’s losses with respect to the VCR and the stolen checks other than the check uttered by Reeves which apparently was in the amount of $40. While section 775.-089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), requires a defendant to make restitution for damages or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense, the damages must bear a reasonable relationship to the offense charged. J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1985). A defendant cannot be required to make payment in excess of the amount of damage the criminal conduct caused the victim. Fresneda v. State, 347 So. 2d 1021 (Fla.1987). There must be a causal relationship between the offense and the damages sustained by the victim. State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla.1988).
There is nothing in the record before us, including the hearsay quotations in the PSI, that reflects a reasonable or causal relationship between the total loss suffered by Richardson and Reeves’ criminal activities, nor is there any evidence reflected by the record that would allow us to review the computations determining the amount of the restitution. Therefore, we must vacate that portion of the order placing Reeves in community control followed by probation that sets the amount of restitution at $500, and remand for a hearing to determine those losses suffered by the victim that bear a reasonable and causal relationship to the offense perpetrated by Reeves.
REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
SHARP, W., and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dyer v. State, 622 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…. In leaving the valuable ring in an unlocked car with one window “busted out,” the victim made it possible for a passerby to have entered the vehicle, discovered the ring, and taken it long before the defendant ever came along. In Reeves v. State, 560 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), the defendant pled guilty to forging and cashing a $40 check drawn on the victim’s bank account. The victim’s hearsay statements indicated that someone broke into her home and stole a VCR and her checkbook and that forged checks…
-
Stewart v. State, 629 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…(citing State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276, 277 (Fla.1988)); Perez n State, 596 So. 2d 487, 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). See also Burke v. State, 596 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Mansingh v. State, 588 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Reeves v. State, 560 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause for entry of a restitution order totaling $445.61.2 The trial court also should award interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum from May 1,1992. See Ebaugh v. State, 623 So.…
-
In the Interest of J.M., 601 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…t stole one bicycle. Section 39.054(1)(f), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), provides that a court “may order the child or parent to make restitution in money or in kind for any damage or loss caused by the child’s offense....” See also Reeves v. State, 560 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), Denson v. State, 556 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), and Peters v. State, 555 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Thus, the trial court did not possess the authority to order appellant to pay for both bicycles. As to the amount that…
Authorities Cited
- Fresneda v. State, 347 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1977)
- State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1988)
- J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1985)