J.M., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
BLUE, Judge.
J.M. was adjudicated delinquent of several offenses, including a residential burglary. He appeals a portion of the restitution order directing him to pay for a security system installed in the residence subsequent to the burglary. We agree that it was error to order J.M. to pay for the security system.
Section 39.054(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1993), permits the award of restitution for “any damage or loss caused by the child’s offense....” The damage or loss for which restitution is ordered need not be directly encompassed within the legal elements of an offense, however, there must be a significant relationship between the damage or loss and the offense. See J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1985); Denson v. State, 556 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Here, the circuit court erred by including the cost of the after-acquired security system in the restitution order because the relationship between the system and J.M.’s delinquent acts was not the significant causal relationship contemplated by the statute.
Accordingly, the order of restitution for the security system is vacated.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.S. v. State, 717 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…ested that [the victim] obtain new locks for his home, there was no significant causal relation between [the victim’s] “loss” in having to pay for new house locks and the offenses which appellant committed. Id. at 1286. Similarly, in J.M. v. State, 658 So. 2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), the second district found no “significant causal relationship” between a residential burglary and the victim’s installation of a security system in his residence. Both J.M. cases demonstrate that the foreseeability of a cos…
-
L.H. v. State, 803 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…717 So. 2d 175, 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). In J.S., this court held that wages lost as a result of the victim’s attendance at court proceedings did not bear a “significant relationship” to the underlying criminal offenses. Id.; see also J.M. v. State, 658 So. 2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)(error to order restitution for a security alarm the victim installed after the burglary). The offending portion of the restitution in this case is based on a chain of events in which L.H. damaged the victim’s car, the damag…
-
J.O.S. v. State, 668 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…onvicted offense.” Id. at 738. Concluding that the damage to the victim’s boat bore such “a significant relationship to the convicted offense” of grand theft because it had been done to facilitate the theft, the court affirmed. Accord J.M. v. State, 658 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Clearly, the damage for which restitution was awarded in this case satisfies the test announced in J.S.H. It would seem that such a conclusion should mark the end of our analysis. However, appellant argues that, because the doll…
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
- J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1985)
- Denson v. State, 556 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)