MAURICE MARSHALL WILCOX, 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.
The court held that a restitution order requires a significant relationship between the loss and the offense of conviction.
Appellant was convicted of pawning stolen property and ordered to pay restitution for other unrecovered property from the same burglary. However, he w…
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 Causation In Criminal Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on a consolidated appeal of appellant’s judgment and sentence in cases 89-442, 89-455, 89-468 and 89-469. Appellant has raised two issues for our consideration, one of which requires discussion.
On August 10,1989, appellant was identified as pawning recently-stolen property from a residential burglary. This property was subsequently returned to the victims. Appellant was arrested and confessed that he was selling the property for a friend. In case 89-468, appellant pled nolo conten-dere and was sentenced to five years in the Department of Corrections, to be followed by three years’ probation. The trial court entered a restitution order pursuant to Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1989), requiring appellant to pay $3,341 for unrecov-ered property stolen during the same burglary that the property he was dealing in was stolen. However, there was no evidence that appellant was one of the actual burglars nor was he linked to the unrecov-ered property in any other way.
In J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1985), the Supreme Court held that in order to support a restitution order, the damage or loss suffered must bear a significant relationship 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, and the sentence is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH and MINER, JJ., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. State, 623 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…not present evidence Moore was the actual thief or that he was “linked to the unrecovered property in any other way,” restitution for the unrecovered property is inappropriate. Mansingh v. State, 588 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Wilcox v. State, 579 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Although it can be argued that Moore is the actual thief because of his “unexplained” possession of stolen property,3 factors including the length of time between the theft and the recovery of the truck, along with Moore’s incul…
-
Burke v. State, 596 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…[*486] Mansingh v. State, 588 So. 2d 636, 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (restitution order reversed where defendant did not directly or indirectly cause damage and no significant relationship was evident between his crime and the damage); Wilcox v. State, 579 So. 2d 148, 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (restitution order reversed where defendant’s offense was not connected to the loss). Accordingly, the trial court’s order of restitution is reversed, and the matter is remanded with instructions for the trial court to strik…
-
Johnson v. State, 599 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…t to pay $4,150 in restitution for a burglary for which appellant was not charged. Denson v. State, 556 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. dismissed, 562 So. 2d 347 (Fla.1990); Cliburn v. State, 510 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Wilcox v. State, 579 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, sentence and restitution order of $35.00 resulting from the offense of dealing in stolen property and vacate the restitution order requiring appellant to pay $4,150.00 in restitution for dama…
Authorities Cited
- J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1985)
- Denson v. State, 556 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Moton v. State, 554 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)