MICHAEL MOORE, 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.
Michael Moore appeals a probation order requiring him to pay restitution for a battery he committed as part of a group attack. The court affirms the restitution requirement but reduces the amount from $21,383.90 to $13,569.00 because the higher figure was not supported by evidence of actual victim expenses.
A court has discretion to require a defendant who commits a criminal offense in concert with others to pay the full amount of restitution for damages caused by the criminal episode, even if other participants also contributed to the injury. However, the restitution amount must be supported by evidence of actual damages.
[1] A court has discretion to require a defendant to pay the full amount of restitution when the defendant commits a criminal offense in concert with others.
[2] Evidence that other persons participated in a battery does not prevent a court from ordering a defendant to make restitution for the full amount of the victim's injuries.
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“Where a defendant commits a criminal offense in concert with others a court has discretion to require the defendant to pay the full amount of restitution.”
Establishes that co-perpetrators can be held jointly liable for full restitution even if they didn't cause all the injuries
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoore was one of several attackers who assaulted a victim, hitting him multiple times and kneeing him in the face, breaking his jaw in two places. Moo…
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 Ability To Pay Restitution cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Michael Moore appeals the trial court’s order of probation requiring him to pay restitution to the victim of a battery where Moore was one of several attackers. Initially, Moore was charged with aggravated battery.1 Moore entered a plea of nolo conten-dere to the lesser included charge of battery2 and was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $21,383.90. We affirm the order of probation, including the condition requiring Moore to pay restitution, but we reduce the total amount of restitution ordered.
Moore was one of several attackers who hit the victim and broke his jaw in two places. Moore hit the victim several times and kneed the victim in the face. Although the state failed to prove that Moore’s blows caused the injury, this court previously has held that, “[w]here a defendant commits a criminal offense in concert with others a court has discretion to require the defendant to pay the full amount of restitution.” Kirkland v. State, 629 So. 2d 1057, 1057 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (rejecting defendant’s argument that he should not be responsible for making restitution for property taken by others during robbery) (citing Spivey v. State, 531 So. 2d 965 (Fla.1988)); see also § 775.089(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993) (requiring sentencing court to order defendant to make restitution to victim for damage or loss which was “caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense” or which was “related to the defendant’s criminal episode”). Accordingly, evidence that other persons participad ed in the battery against the victim did not prevent the trial court from ordering Moore to make restitution for the full amount of the victim’s injuries.3
The total amount of restitution ordered, however, was not supported by the evidence presented to the trial court. The state properly concedes that the total amount of the bills entered into evidence for the victim was $13,569.00, not $21,388.90. Accordingly, we reduce the total amount of restitution ordered from $21,383.90 to $13,-569.00.
AFFIRMED as modified.
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . § 784.045(l)(a)l, Fla.Stat. (1993).
. § 784.03, Fla.Stat. (1993).
. We also reject Moore's argument that the evidence failed to show he had the ability to pay restitution as ordered by the court. See Bain v. State, 642 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), review denied, 651 So. 2d 1192 (Fla.1995); Therrien v. State, 637 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 645 So. 2d 456 (Fla.1994).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fisher v. State, 722 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…presented by the State. While there is some case law extant that would permit this court in its discretion to reduce the amount of restitution for the lost jewelry to the amount for which there was competent substantial evidence, see Moore v. State, 664 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), we opt instead to reverse and remand so that a new restitution hearing regarding the value of the jewelry can be held. See Tullis v. State, 692 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Smith v. State, 651 So. 2d 1218, 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1…
-
Hall v. State, 760 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…. State, 688 So. 2d 913 (Fla.1997). Here, Hall committed some of the offenses in concert with others and we conclude it was within the trial court’s discretion to order the defendant to pay the full amount of the restitution awarded. Moore v. State, 664 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). [*973] We do find merit in Hall’s objection to the imposition of investigative costs. The state sought $42,794 for investigative costs and Hall objected to $28,533 of that total, the amount attributed to services performed by a…
-
A.J.N. v. State, 715 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…); Strickland v. State, 685 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Finally, even though A.J.N. acted in concert with others, his involvement cannot be apportioned. Therefore, A.J.N. can be required to pay the entire restitution amount. See Moore v. State, 664 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). AFFIRMED. GRIFFIN, C.J., and COBB, J., concur. . § 810.02(3), Fla. Stat. (1997). . § 806.13(0(6)2, Fla. Stat. (1997).…
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
- Spivey v. State, 531 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1988)
- Therrien v. State, 637 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Bain v. State, 642 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Kirkland v. State, 629 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)