CHRISTOPHER HEBERT, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court held that when a defendant enters a plea agreement that expressly leaves restitution to the trial court's discretion, the court may impose restitution exceeding the statutory dollar limit of the reduced offense, provided there is no abuse of discretion. The Court answered a certified question regarding whether restitution is capped by the maximum value of the offense to which a defendant pleads guilty.
Yes, when a defendant's plea agreement expressly leaves the amount of restitution to the trial court's discretion, the court may impose restitution exceeding the statutory dollar limit of the reduced offense, provided the restitution is based on actual damages caused by the defendant's conduct and there is no abuse of discretion. The Court reserved judgment on whether the same result would apply absent an express agreement.
[1] A trial court may order restitution in an amount exceeding the statutory value limit for a lesser included offense when the plea agreement does not specifically restrict…
[2] A plea agreement that reduces a felony charge to a misdemeanor, without explicitly limiting restitution, does not automatically cap restitution at the statutory value of…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“When a defendant pleads guilty to an offense defined by a maximum dollar value, can court-ordered restitution exceed that amount when the voluntary plea agreement expressly leaves the amount of restitution to the discretion of the trial court?”
The Court's rephrased certified question that it answered affirmatively, establishing the core legal issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChristopher Hebert and another defendant were employed by a Tallahassee restaurant where they came under suspicion of placing food orders without issu…
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 Plea Agreement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
[*494] KOGAN, Justice.
We have for review Hebert v. State, 600 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA1992), which certified the following question of great public importance:
Where a defendant enters into a plea agreement that is not thereafter challenged and by which the charge of felony grand theft is reduced to misdemeanor petit theft, but which agreement does not restrict the amount of restitution that may be imposed, and where the State in fact proves by a preponderance of the evidence an amount consistent with the original charge, is the trial court nonetheless restrained by the' plea to petit theft to impose an amount of restitution no greater than $300.00?
Id. at 1295. We rephrase the question as follows:
When a defendant pleads guilty to an offense defined by a maximum dollar value, can court-ordered restitution exceed that amount when the voluntary plea agreement expressly leaves the amount of restitution to the discretion of the trial court?
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The two Petitioners were employed by a Tallahassee restaurant, Rooster’s Colorado Club, during which time they came under suspicion of placing food orders without issuing appropriate bills. They later were charged with third-degree grand theft, but entered a plea agreement for petit theft. The agreement expressly left “[restitution to be determined by court.”
Under Florida law, petit theft constitutes theft of property with a value less than $300.00. § 812.014(2)(d), Fla.Stat. (1989). The trial court later determined that Petitioners were responsible for more than $5,000.00 in losses to the restaurant and ordered each to pay restitution in the amount of $2,530.00. They later challenged the order on grounds it could not exceed the value assigned to their offense, but the district court rejected this argument. Hebert, 600 So. 2d at 1294-95.
The applicable statute limits restitution to “damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense.” § 775.-089(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989). Petitioners now argue that this wording necessarily places a ceiling on restitution equal to whatever dollar value is specified in the offense resulting in sentence, if any such value exists. The State on the other hand argues that the restitution statute gauges value solely by reference to damage caused by the misconduct, not by the arbitrary value assigned to any particular property offense:
While there may be merit to either argument, we find it unnecessary to confront the issue in the present case. The instant plea agreement expressly left the amount of restitution to the trial court’s discretion and accordingly constituted a waiver of any objection Petitioners now might raise as to that amount, absent a clear showing the trial court abused its discretion. We find no abuse here. We reserve judgment as to whether a similar result would be mandated in the absence of an express agreement of the type involved here. Accordingly, we answer the rephrased question in the affirmative and approve the decision below.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, SHAW, GRIMES and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.O.S. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1997)…ef had he been an adult, J.O.S. could be required to pay restitution in excess of the maximum dollar value that could support a second-degree criminal mischief conviction. J.O.S., 668 So. 2d at 1085. The district court noted that in Hebert v. State, 614 So. 2d 493, 494 (Fla. 1993), we expressly reserved judgment on the question of whether in the absence of a plea agreement leaving the amount of restitution to the trial court’s discretion, restitution could be ordered in an amount greater than the maximum doll…1 / 3
-
Armstrong v. State, 620 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ondition of restitution if defendant agreed to pay restitution to accident victim as part of defendant’s plea to charge of leaving scene of accident and in consideration of state agreeing to drop criminal mischief charge).3 See also Hebert v. State, 614 So. 2d 493 (Fla.1993) (holding defendant waived right to raise objection to amount of restitution where plea agreement expressly left amount to trial court’s discretion); Dent v. State, 432 So. 2d 163 (Fla.4th DCA 1983) (where full restitution was condition of…
-
Triplett v. State, 709 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ited restitution to the exact crime to which a criminal defendant actually pled, even though several crimes (or greater crimes) were committed as part of the criminal episode. See Hebert v. State, 600 So. 2d 1293, 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), approved, 614 So. 2d 493 (Fla.1993); L.A.R. v. State, 563 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The companion amendment adding subsection (b)2 to the same statute supports this interpretation. The correct test for restitution is whether “but for” the criminal episode, the damage…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hebert v. State, 600 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)