ROBERT J. VANLIEU, JR., 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.
Vanlieu appeals a restitution order requiring him to pay $14,900 to his aggravated battery victim. The court affirms the $4,000 award for medical expenses but reverses the $10,900 lost wages component, holding that when a defendant objects to a restitution claim at sentencing, the state must establish the amount through competent evidence at a hearing.
When a defendant objects to a restitution claim at sentencing, he is entitled to a hearing based on competent evidence to establish the amount. The state must prove the dollar value of the victim's loss by a preponderance of the evidence through testimony or admissible documents. A PSI alone is insufficient when the defendant objects.
[1] Lost wages may provide a proper basis for a restitution award to a victim of a crime.
[2] A defendant is entitled to a hearing based on competent evidence to establish the amount of a restitution claim for lost wages when the defendant objects to the amount at…
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“However, if the defendant objects to the amount of the claim at the sentencing hearing, as occurred in this case, he is entitled to a hearing based on competent evidence to establish its amount.”
Establishes the core holding that objection to a restitution claim requires a hearing with competent evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVanlieu pled nolo contendere to aggravated battery and was sentenced to ten years' probation. At sentencing, the trial judge imposed a restitution ord…
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 Restitution Amount cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Vanlieu appeals from an order of restitution, which requires him to pay $14,900 to the victim of a criminal battery. He pled nolo contendere to aggravated battery,1 and was placed on probation for ten years. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
At the plea hearing, Vanlieu’s attorney agreed he should make restitution of $4,000 to the victim to compensate for the victim’s medical bills and expenses. However, he objected to an additional claim of $10,900 for the victim’s lost wages. The claim had been noted on the PSI but no documentation evidencing the amount of the claim was presented either before or at the sentencing hearing when the restitution order was imposed.
When Vanlieu’s attorney objected to the $10,900 lost wage claim, the judge stated:
It sounds reasonable to me. I think I’ll go ahead with it. Then you can review it later. I’m going ahead with it.
The order was thereafter rendered without any further substantiation of the lost wage claim.
Lost wages may well provide a proper basis for a restitution award to a victim of a crime. § 775.089(2)(e), Fla.Stat. (1991); Self v. State, 458 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). To establish the proper amount for such an award, a PSI may suffice, unless the defendant objects to the amount set forth in the report. Loos v. State, 585 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Fleming v. State, 547 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
However, if the defendant objects to the amount of the claim at the sentencing hearing, as occurred in this case, he is entitled to a hearing based on competent evidence to establish its amount. See Nettles v. State, 611 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). See also Langston v. State, 616 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 626 So. 2d 206 (Fla.1993); Thomas v. State, 517 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Snell v. State, 502 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). At such a hearing, the state must establish the dollar value of the victim’s loss by a preponderance of the evidence either through testimony or documents admissible in evidence.2
Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the restitution award related to the victim’s claim for lost wages ($10,900) and affirm the $4,000 allotted for medical expenses. We remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings which may include the conduct of a hearing to determine the amount of the victim’s lost wage claim and whether the restitution order should include sums for this purpose. See Langston v. State, 616 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 626 So. 2d 206 (Fla.1993); Thomas v. State, 517 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Snell v. State, 502 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . § 784.045(l)(a)(2), Fla.Stat. (1989).
. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat. (1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neal v. State, 688 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…result of the offense, even if the victim has not sustained any bodily injury. Earlier, somewhat narrower, versions of the statute have been held sufficiently broad to permit reimbursement for lost wages and travel expenses. E.g., Vanlieu v. State, 630 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Haynes v. State, 575 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Self v. State, 458 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We see no reason to reach a different result under the current, somewhat broader, version of the statute. Accordingly, alt…
-
Lunsford v. State, 637 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…89(7), Florida Statutes (1991) puts the burden of demonstrating the amount of loss to be compensated for by restitution on the state. See also Bolling v. State, 631 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (state has burden of proving loss); Vanlieu v. State, 630 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (if objection to amount of restitution, state must establish amount at hearing). In this case, the amount of restitution was objected to by the defendant and the trial judge as [*349] sured him a hearing would be scheduled. None…
-
Javon Graham v. State, 720 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ay provide a basis for a restitution award. See § 775.089(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). However, if the amount of the award is objected to, a defendant is entitled to receive a hearing to establish the amount by competent evidence. See Vanlieu v. State, 630 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Furthermore, when disputed, the state has the burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by the victim. See § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (1995); see also Lunsford v. State, 637 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Here, du…
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
- Thomas v. State, 517 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Langston v. State, 616 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Lewis v. State, 502 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Richardson v. State, 458 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Snell v. State, 502 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Fleming v. State, 547 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Loos v. State, 585 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Nettles v. State, 611 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)