SHEILA LYNN STEWART, 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 restitution cannot be ordered for conduct outside the time period charged in the information, as it is neither a direct nor indirect cause of the convicted crime.
[1] A defendant may not be ordered to pay restitution for conduct outside the time period charged in the information to which the defendant pleaded.
[2] Restitution ordered must be a direct or indirect cause of, or significantly related to, the crime for which the defendant was convicted.
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 intelligenceSheila Lynn Stewart pleaded nolo contendere to grand theft for conduct between April 21, 1992, and May 1, 1992. The trial court ordered restitution fo…
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 Grand Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
DIAMANTIS, Judge.
Sheila Lynn Stewart appeals the portion of her order of probation which directs her to pay $11,749 to her employer, the victim of Stewart’s grand theft. We reverse and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Stewart was charged with grand theft1 for conduct committed during the eleven-day period between April 21, 1992, and May 1, 1992. Video surveillance evidence during nine of the eleven days established that Stewart stole an average of $40.51 per day. Stewart entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge and did not contest the fact that she stole from her employer during the eleven-day period covered by the information. The trial court’s restitution order, however, directs Stewart to pay restitution for thefts occurring between August 1, 1991, and May 1, 1992. This portion of the order was error because, pursuant to her plea, Stewart was only convicted of grand theft for conduct occurring during the eleven-day period from April 21, 1992, to May 1, 1992. Stewart cannot be ordered to pay restitution beyond the time period charged in the information because such restitution would neither be a direct or indirect cause of, nor be significantly related to, Stewart’s crime. Also, Stewart did not agree to pay restitution 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 should award interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum from May 1,1992. See Ebaugh v. State, 623 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur. . § 812.014(1), 2(c), Fla.Stat. (1991).
. $40.51 per day %2all days = $445.61.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Malarkey v. State, 975 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…d in the information and/or by the factual basis for the plea set forth by the State when the plea is entered. See, e.g., Avery v. State, 838 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Noland v. State, 734 So. 2d 464, 466 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Stewart v. State, 629 So. 2d 982, 983 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). For example, in Avery, Avery was charged with grand theft arising out of the theft of cash payments made to Avery by his employer’s customers. 838 So. 2d at 1247. While the information charged only that Avery had stolen ca…
-
Noland v. State, 734 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…however, the error relates to recovery of restitution for items not within the ambit of the information charging grand theft. Restitution cannot be ordered for a theft not encompassed within the charge contained in the information. Stewart v. State, 629 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (employee who stole property from her employer could not be required to pay restitution in connection with thefts which occurred outside 11 day period which was charged in information to which employee plead guilty; restitution f…
-
Bakos v. State, 698 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…a significant relationship existed between the loss and the defendant’s actions. Moore v. State, 623 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Restitution cannot be awarded for losses which occur outside the time alleged in the Information. Stewart v. State, 629 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). And, while the Court is not restricted to fair market value in determining restitution, it should consider the fair market value through direct testimony or evidence of the original cost, the use of the item, and its condition a…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1988)
- Mansingh v. State, 588 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Dyer v. State, 622 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Santa Caridad Perez v. State, 596 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Reeves v. State, 560 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Burke v. State, 596 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Ebaugh v. State, 623 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)