JOHNNY ROSERO, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed an amended order granting a civil restitution hen to a crime victim under Florida's victim restitution statute. The court held that the statutory restitution amounts represent reasonable estimates of victim losses and that the civil restitution proceeding does not implicate double jeopardy protections because it is civil, not criminal, in nature.
The court affirmed the restitution hen, holding that: (1) the statutory amounts listed in section 960.293 represent reasonable estimates of crime victim losses within constitutional bounds and are rationally related to actual damages; and (2) civil restitution proceedings under the statute do not trigger double jeopardy protections because they are civil, not criminal, in nature.
[1] A civil sanction may constitute punishment for double jeopardy purposes if it is so divorced from any remedial goal.
[2] Legislatively created formulas for victim compensation, such as liquidated damages, are permissible if rationally related to the incurred damage.
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“governments may legislate imprecise formulas, such as liquidated damages clauses, in order to compensate victims for losses, so long as the damage amount legislated is rationally related to the damage incurred”
Establishes the constitutional standard from Halper that permits statutory restitution formulas if rationally related to actual losses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA crime victim was awarded a civil restitution hen pursuant to Florida's victim restitution statute (sections 960.29 et seq.). The victim requested an…
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 Double Jeopardy Analysis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Under the authority of United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989), we affirm the amended order granting Appellant’s victim a civil restitution hen pursuant to sections 960.29 et seq., Florida Statutes (Supp.1994).
In Halper, the Supreme Court addressed the question of “whether a civil sanction, in appheation, may be so divorced from any remedial goal that it constitutes ‘punishment’ for the purposes of double jeopardy analysis.” Id. at 443, 109 S.Ct. at 1899. In answering this question, the Court recognized two principles which we beheve are disposi-tive of this appeal.
First, the Court made clear that governments may legislate imprecise formulas, such as liquidated damages clauses, in order to compensate victims for losses, so long as the damage amount legislated is rationally related to the damage incurred. Id. at 449, 109 S.Ct. at 1902. It is our conclusion that the amounts hsted in section 960.293 represent reasonable estimates of the losses incurred by crime victims within the bounds defined by Halper and therefore imposition of a lien for the hsted amount was not error.1
Second, in Halper, the Court recognized that the protections afforded by the double jeopardy clause are not triggered when private parties file civil suits for damages caused by conduct that was also the subject of criminal prosecution and punishment. Id. at 451, 109 S.Ct. at 1903. Although under section 960.292(2), the criminal trial court retains jurisdiction over the matter, the legislative intent of the statute, as expressed in section 960.29(l)(c), was to create an accelerated method of providing civil restitution to crime victims. Accordingly, as the imposition of a civil restitution hen under section 960.29 et seq. is a civil, not criminal, action, the protections provided by the double jeopardy clause are not available to Appellant.
We have considered Appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.
STONE, FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur. . We note that in the instant case, the victim asked for and was awarded less than she was entitled to under section 960.293(l)(a).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Dep't of Corr. v. Julianne M. Holt (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (U.S. 1989)