JIMMY BURKE, 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.
Jimmy Burke was convicted of trespass in a conveyance (a lesser included offense after acquittal on grand theft charges) and ordered to pay $3,500 restitution to the car owner. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reversed the restitution order, finding no causal connection between Burke's trespass offense and the vehicle damage.
The restitution order was improper and must be reversed. The damage to the vehicle was not caused directly or indirectly by Burke's trespass offense, and there was no significant relationship between the convicted crime of trespass and the damage inflicted on the car.
[1] A trial court may order restitution to a victim for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by a defendant's offense, unless clear and compelling reasons exist not t…
[2] To determine the appropriateness of a restitution order, a court must assess whether the damage or loss was caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense and w…
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“was the damage or loss for which restitution is ordered caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense[?]" Second, "was there a significant relationship between the damage to the victim and the crime proved[?]”
Establishes the two-pronged test courts must apply when considering restitution orders under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice found Burke sitting in the driver's seat of a stolen car that had been missing for three weeks. Upon seeing the officer, Burke and another indi…
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 Trespass In A Conveyance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jimmy Burke appeals his judgment and sentence. We affirm, except with respect to the trial court’s order that Burke pay restitution.
The State of Florida charged Burke with grand theft of an automobile. At trial, a police officer testified that he found Burke sitting in the driver’s seat and another individual sitting in the back seat of the car, which had been stolen approximately three weeks earlier. Upon seeing the policeman, both men fled. The officer did not see Burke holding anything as he exited the car. The officer, who knew Burke, did not chase either individual, but instead secured the vehicle. He found tools scattered on the ground next to the driver’s door. The steering column of the car was smashed, the rear window was broken, the radio was gone, and the wheels were missing. Evidence was also introduced at trial to show that Burke was in jail when the car was stolen. The jury acquitted Burke of grand theft, but found him guilty of trespass in a conveyance, a lesser included offense. The trial court, over Burke’s objection, ordered him to pay restitution to the owner of the car in the amount of $3,500.00, the total cost to restore the vehicle to its previous condition.
A trial court has the authority to order restitution pursuant to section 775.-089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991). The statute provides:
In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense, unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution. Restitution may be monetary or nonmonetary restitution. The court shall make the payment of restitution a condition to probation....
In considering the appropriateness of a restitution order, this court applies the following two-pronged test: first, “was the damage or loss for which restitution is ordered caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense[?]” Second, “was there a significant relationship between the damage to the victim and the crime proved[?]” Watson v. State, 579 So. 2d 900, 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
Despite the trial court’s ruling, the facts of this case do not demonstrate that Burke’s trespass, which occurred about three weeks after the theft of the vehicle, caused any direct or indirect damage or loss to the car. The evidence also does not show that Burke’s convicted offense had any significant relationship to the damage done to the vehicle. Thus, the trial court erred in ordering Burke to pay restitution. 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 strike the restitution order from Burke’s sentence. We affirm in all other respects.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
DOWNEY, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stewart v. State, 629 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…on for her employer’s claimed loss of $11,749. See Dyer v. State, 622 So. 2d 1158, 1158 (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…
-
Carter v. State, 640 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur. . See this court’s opinion in Carter v. State, 640 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). . See DeLong v. State, 638 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Jackson v. State, 634 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Burke v. State, 596 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Barkley v. State, 585 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Johnson v. State, 547 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Simmons v. State, 484 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Bass v. State, 462 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). But see Durand v…
-
Carter v. State, 640 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…light of the fact that appellants were acquitted on the third degree murder charge.1 MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur. . See DeLong v. State, 638 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Jackson v. State, 634 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Burke v. State, 596 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Barkley v. State, 585 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Johnson v. State, 547 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Simmons v. State, 484 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Bass v. State, 462 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). But see Durand v…
Authorities Cited
- Mansingh v. State, 588 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Watson v. State, 579 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Wilcox v. State, 579 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)