ELENA SANTIAGO AND MARGARET KUHL, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 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.
Elena Santiago and Margaret Kuhl were convicted of trespassing and assault after entering the home of Santiago's daughter on a Navy base in Key West. On appeal, they challenged a restitution order requiring them to pay for expenses the victim incurred taking her child to Virginia for safekeeping, but the court affirmed, finding the expenses were directly caused by the appellants' crimes.
The trial court's restitution order was affirmed. The expenses incurred by the victim in taking and keeping her child in Virginia for safekeeping were directly and significantly related to the crimes proved at trial and thus constituted a financial loss causally connected to the appellants' criminal conduct.
[1] Restitution may be ordered for expenses incurred by a victim that are directly and significantly related to the crimes proved at trial.
[2] A victim's fear for her child's safety, stemming from threats made by a defendant during the commission of a crime, can establish a causal connection for restitution purp…
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“Clearly, the expenses involved herein resulted in the victim suffering a financial loss that was, at the very least, indirectly (if not directly) caused by the offenses committed by the appellants.”
The court's principal holding that restitution is appropriate because the victim's expenses had a causal nexus to the appellants' crimes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSantiago and Kuhl traveled from Immokaleemee to Key West after an argument with the victim (Santiago's daughter and Kuhl's sister) over family matters…
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.
PER CURIAM.
The appellants herein, who were the defendants below, were both convicted of Trespass of an Occupied Structure. In addition, appellant Santiago was convicted of a Battery. The victim in this case is the daughter of appellant Santiago and the sister of appellant Kuhl. The offenses occurred in the victim’s home, which is located on the Navy Base in Key West where the victim, who is in the Navy, lived with her four-year-old daughter. The appellants, both of whom five in Immok-alee, Florida, traveled to Key West, and committed the offenses for which they were convicted, after the abrupt end of a telephone conversation that involved an argument between the parties over family matters.
At one point during the incident, appellant Santiago grabbed the victim’s four-year-old daughter. Thereafter, the victim managed to retrieve her daughter from appellant Santiago and proceeded to run to a neighbor’s house with her daughter. When the neighbor opened the door, the victim gave her daughter to the neighbor for safekeeping. Appellant Santiago followed the victim to the neighbor’s house and began hitting the victim. At some point thereafter, appellant Santiago hit the victim with a “log”.
Subsequent to the incident described above, the victim, in an obvious effort to remove her four-year-old daughter from any possible zone of danger, took her daughter to Virginia where she was able to make arrangements for the child’s safekeeping for a period of one months At the end of that period of time, the victim traveled back to Virginia so that she could pick up her daughter and return the child to her home at the Navy Base in Key West.
At the restitution hearing, which took place after both defendants were found guilty by a jury, the victim testified that she was emotionally distraught after the incident and was forced to take her young daughter to a friend’s house in Virginia because she was afraid that the appellants would return to Key West and kidnap her daughter. The victim further testified that she was specifically concerned for her daughter’s safety because appellant Santiago had stated that she (appellant Santiago) only cared about her granddaughter, and not about the victim.
At the conclusion of the restitution hearing, the trial judge ordered the appellants, as part of the probationary sentences that they both received, to make restitution to the victim for the expenses incurred by the victim in connection with the trip to Virginia. The appellants appeal from the order of restitution.
In response to the appellants’ brief filed in this cause, the appellee filed a document entitled “Confession of Error Brief of Appellee” wherein “the State concedes that there is no causal connection between the offense for which the defendants were convicted ... and the expense incurred in taking and keeping the child in Virginia.” We find that confession to be both ill-advised and legally incorrect. Accordingly, we do not accept it. More importantly, we hold that the trial judge was eminently correct in ordering the restitution in question. Clearly, the expenses involved herein resulted in the victim suffering a financial loss that was, at the very least, indirectly (if not directly) caused by the offenses committed by the appellants. Specifically, the financial loss suffered by the victim, in the form of the monies spent by the victim for the safekeeping of her child, were directly and significantly related to the crimes proved at trial. See State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla.1988); Section 775.089(1)(a) Florida Statutes (1993).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perry v. State, 808 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…998), and it is the practice of Florida appellate courts not to accept erroneous concessions by the state. See Reed v. State, 783 So. 2d 1192, 1196 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Henry v. State, 564 So. 2d 212, 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Santiago v. State, 669 So. 2d 334, 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Prieto v. State, 627 So. 2d 20, 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), rev. denied, 634. So. 2d 626 (Fla.1994). We cannot agree that a reversal for resentenc-ing is required under the circumstances here. Appellant was convicted of selling…
-
Dinardo v. State, 742 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…e, 584 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and Vaughn v. State, 705 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) compel reversal here. A legally incorrect confession of error is not binding upon or required to be accepted by an appellate court. See Santiago v. State, 669 So. 2d 334, 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); L.S. v. State, 547 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).…
-
Melina M. Nacius and Aurilien Nacius v. ONE W. Bank, FSB, 211 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…o accept a confession of error. D.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 84 So. 3d 1136, 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Bain v. State, 919 So. 2d 599, 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citing Perry v. State, 808 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)); Santiago v. State, 669 So. 2d 334, 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)). We are, however, required to assess our own jurisdiction even when not raised by the parties. Rayburn v. Bright, 163 So. 3d 735, 736 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Ruffin v. Kingswood E. Condo. Ass’n, 719 So. 2d 951, 952 (Fla. 4th DC…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1988)