MICHAEL BOWEN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1994-12-22
No. 94-576
HARRIS, C.J., and W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
646 So. 2d 305 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1994) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment and sentence are affirmed. The restitution order is vacated. The record clearly reflects, and the state concedes, that the stolen items on which the restitution was based had been taken in a 1990 burglary by appellant, not the 1992 break-in of which appellant was convicted. The fact that the fingerprints obtained in the 1992 ease showed appellant also committed the 1990 burglary will not support the restitution. Restitution must be for loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense. § 775.089(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1991).

JUDGMENT and SENTENCE AFFIRMED, RESTITUTION VACATED.

HARRIS, C.J., and W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • McMONAGLE v. State, 696 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
    …sentenced him to thirty months in prison. The court also ordered MeMonagle to pay $628.00 as restitution for the theft. Restitution is properly awarded for damages related to the crime for which a defendant is being sentenced. See Bowen v. State, 646 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Ochoa v. State, 596 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In this case the restitution that was ordered to be paid was not related to the 1992 charge for which MeMonagle was being sentenced upon revocation of probation. Therefore, the…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw