J.B., A CHILD, 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.
J.B., a juvenile convicted of theft of an automobile and golf cart, appeals an order requiring restitution for vehicle damages and victims' lost wages from attending the restitution hearing. The court reversed, holding that J.B. was entitled to be present at the restitution hearing and that lost wages from witness testimony were not causally related to the crime itself.
The court reversed the restitution order, holding that J.B. was entitled to be present at the restitution hearing and that the state failed to prove an effective waiver of this right through an unsworn conversation with an unidentified speaker. Additionally, the court held that restitution for lost wages attributable to witness attendance at the hearing was not authorized because such wages lacked the requisite causal relationship to the crime itself.
[1] A juvenile has a right to be present at a restitution hearing unless that right is validly waived.
[2] A juvenile's failure to appear at a restitution hearing does not automatically constitute an effective waiver of the right to be present.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“J.B. was entitled to be present at the restitution hearing unless he validly waived that right (See Rule 8.100, Fla.R.Juv.P.)”
Establishes the fundamental right of a juvenile to be present at restitution proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.B., a juvenile, was convicted of theft of an automobile and theft of a golf cart. The trial court ordered him to pay restitution to the vehicle owne…
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 Causation In Restitution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
J.B., a juvenile, was convicted of the criminal offenses of theft of an automobile and theft of a golfeart. He appeals an order requiring him to pay restitution to the owners for damages to the two vehicles suffered as a consequence of the theft, and to pay restitution in the amount of lost wages sustained by the victims for the time they spent in attending the restitution hearing. We reverse for the following reasons.
We agree with J.B. that he was entitled to be present at the restitution hearing unless he validly waived that right (See Rule 8.100, Fla.R.Juv.P.), and that even though he did not show up at the scheduled restitution hearing, the state failed to prove an effective waiver of his right to be present. The trial court’s conversation with an “unidentified speaker” (even though it appeared the speaker was J.B.’s mother) was not sworn evidence and did not constitute competent, substantial evidence proving an effective waiver of this right. Further, we note that neither the transcript of the hearing nor the restitution order contains any finding of waiver by the trial court.
We also agree with J.B. that it was error to order restitution for lost wages attributable to the victims’ attendance as wit nesses at the restitution hearing. “[A] substantial limitation on restitution in juvenile cases is the element of causation.” K.M.C. v. State, 485 So. 2d 1296, 1297 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1335 (Fla.1986). In that respect, it is necessary that “the damage bear a significant relationship to the convicted offense.” J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737, 738 (Fla.1985). These maxims, taken in conjunction with the strict construction that must be given the juvenile restitution statute and the lack of any specific reference in the statute to lost wages, lead us to conclude that the award of restitution for lost wages was not authorized by law because these lost wages were not causally related to the commission of the crime but resulted from the witnesses’ attendance at the hearing. The state cites no authority for including as costs the wages lost by a witness.
The order of restitution is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings on the matter of restitution consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ZEHMER, C.J., and DAVIS, J., concur. BOOTH, J., dissents with opinion.
BOOTH, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the order below in its entirety. Appellant was notified of the restitution hearing, his counsel was present but appellant willfully chose not to attend and, therefore, cannot now be heard to complain that the hearing was conducted in his absence. Capuzzo v. State, 596 So. 2d 438, 440 (Fla.1992). In Capuzzo, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the court’s right to sentence a defendant who voluntarily failed to attend a sentencing hearing. The rationale of that opinion applicable here is that “defendants cannot be allowed to thwart or impede the judicial process through their own misconduct.” Aguiar v. State, 633 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Accord, Dufour v. State, 495 So. 2d 154, 161 (Fla.1986) (defendant voluntarily absented himself from pretrial motions hearing by “embarking on a ‘hunger strike’ culminating in his hospitalization during the hearing”), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1101, 107 S.Ct. 1332, 94 L.Ed.2d 183 (1987).
Concerning assessment of restitution for wages lost by the victim as a result of attending the restitution hearing, no authority is cited which precludes including these amounts in the restitution, and no abuse of the trial court’s discretion is shown on the record before us.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
M.W.G. v. State, 945 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…1995). This includes hearings at which the imposition of and the amount of restitution are to be determined. See, e.g., T.A.S. v. State, 892 So. 2d 1233,1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Miller v. State, 833 So. 2d 318, 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); J.B. v. State, 646 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). However, a defendant can waive this right and exercise constructive presence through counsel. Coney, 653 So. 2d at 1013. If the defendant does so, before the proceedings may commence, the court must determine that the defendant’…
-
Koile v. State, 902 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…ognized that section 775.089(2)(b) permits restitution for income lost by the victim as a result of the offense, but determined that the restitution statute also requires the application of the significant relationship test.1 See also J.B. v. State, 646 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (taking into account the juvenile statute does not specifically reference lost wages, the award of restitution for lost wages was not authorized by law because these lost wages were not causally related to the commission of the c…
-
J.S. v. State, 717 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…r of stolen property); Arling v. State, 559 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (attorney’s fees incurred in interpleader action by victim of dealing in stolen property crime reasonably foreseeable to person who sells stolen property). In J.B. v. State, 646 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the first district confronted an issue identical to that in this case— whether a juvenile defendant could be required to make restitution to the victims for lost wages attributable to the time spent in attending a restitution he…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dufour v. State, 495 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1986)
- J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1985)
- Henkel v. United States, 479 U.S. 1101 (U.S. 1987)
- Parker v. Illinois, 479 U.S. 1101 (U.S. 1987)
- Capuzzo v. State, 596 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1992)
- K.M.C. v. State, 485 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Aguiar v. State, 633 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)