CHRISTOPHER LEE MILTON, 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.
Christopher Milton was convicted of grand theft of three nail guns and ordered to pay $4,310.74 in restitution. The court reversed because the state failed to demonstrate that the full restitution amount was directly attributable to the specific crime of conviction, as Milton was not charged with or convicted of the underlying burglary.
Restitution must be limited to the loss directly or indirectly caused by the specific offense of conviction. Milton can only be required to pay restitution for the three nail guns for which he was convicted, not for all items taken in the burglary. The restitution order of $4,310.74 is reversed because the state failed to demonstrate what portion of that amount, if any, was attributable to the three nail guns.
[1] Restitution ordered must be limited to the direct or indirect damage or loss caused by the specific offense for which the defendant was convicted.
[2] A defendant convicted of theft of specific items cannot be required to make restitution for items not included in the charging information, absent a conviction for a broa…
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“Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), provides for the payment of restitution by a defendant for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by his offense.”
Establishes the statutory standard for restitution—it must be limited to losses caused by the specific offense of conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMilton was charged with grand theft of three nail guns allegedly taken during a burglary of San Antonio Lumber Company. Milton denied participation in…
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.
QUINCE, Judge.
Christopher Milton challenges the amount of restitution ordered after his conviction for grand theft. We reverse because .the state did not demonstrate the total amount of the restitution was directly or indirectly attributable to the crime for which appellant was convicted.
Milton was charged by information with grand theft of nail guns. Both the defense attorney and the prosecutor indicated Milton was caught with three nail guns. These guns were allegedly taken during a burglary of the San Antonio Lumber Company. Milton denied any participation in the burglary, and he was neither charged with nor convicted of burglary.
At the restitution hearing Milton’s attorney agreed to the $250.00 restitution amount to be paid to Mr. Schrader, the owner of San Antonio Lumber Company. However, he argued the state did not prove the three nail guns were valued at $4,310.74. The testimony merely indicated this was the amount the insurance company reimbursed San Antonio Lumber for the burglary losses. There was no testimony concerning the number or kind of items taken during the burglary or the number or kind of items included in the $4,310.74 restitution amount.
Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), provides for the payment of restitution by a defendant for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by his offense. J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1985). Milton pled guilty to the loss of three nail guns. The restitution must be limited to the cost of those items.
This case is factually similar to the situation addressed in Faulkner v. State, 582 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), where the defendant was convicted of dealing in stolen property. The defendant was ordered to make restitution for all of the property taken in a burglary. The fifth district reversed since the defendant was charged with theft of two rifles, not burglary. See also Martel v. State, 596 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Since Milton was convicted of grand theft of the nail guns and he was not associated with the burglary, he cannot be required to make restitution for any items not included in the information. O’Connor v. State, 587 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We reverse the order setting restitution at $4,310.741 and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur. . Milton's attorney agreed to the $250.00; therefore, it is not the subject of this appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1985)
- Faulkner v. State, 582 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- O'Conner v. State, 587 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Martel v. State, 596 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)