ROBIN LEGRACE STRICKLAND, 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.
Strickland was convicted of grand theft as a restaurant head waitress and ordered to pay $23,444 in restitution. The court reversed, holding that the state failed to prove Strickland caused the entire revenue shortfall, and remanded for restitution limited to the $631 in control tickets found in her possession.
The court reversed the restitution award because the state failed to meet its burden of proving that Strickland was responsible for the entire shortfall in revenues. While the evidence may have established the amount of business losses, it did not prove that Strickland caused that entire loss.
[1] The state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the amount of loss sustained by a victim as a result of a crime and that the defendant caused that loss.
[2] A restitution award is improper where the state fails to prove that the defendant's conduct caused the entire loss claimed by the victim.
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“In asking for restitution, the state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the amount of loss sustained by a victim as a result of a crime and that the defendant caused that loss.”
Establishes the two-part test the state must satisfy for restitution awards
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStrickland worked as head waitress at the Junkyard Cafe from February to July 1994, responsible for issuing control tickets to other staff and account…
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 Grand Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robin Legrace Strickland challenges an order requiring her to pay restitution in the amount of $23,444 as a condition of probation. We reverse because the evidence was insufficient to support the restitution award.
Strickland was employed as the head waitress at the Junkyard Cafe from February 1994 to July 1994. Part of Strickland’s job involved issuing control tickets to other waiters and waitresses and accounting for the used and unused tickets. Beginning in February and continuing through July, revenues at the restaurant were below the owner’s projections. In July, Strickland was found to have control tickets totalling $631 in her personal possession. She was arrested and subsequently pleaded no contest to grand theft. The state requested restitution in the amount of $23,444, which the restaurant owner testified was the difference between his actual revenue and his projected revenue from March to July. In asking for restitution, the state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the amount of loss sustained by a victim as a result of a crime and that the defendant caused that loss. Moore v. State, 643 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Here the state presented the owner’s detailed testimony regarding his system of record keeping and his method of calculating projected profits. We will assume without discussion that this evidence was sufficient to establish the amount of business losses sustained by the victim. However, we conclude that it was not sufficient to satisfy the state’s burden of proving that Strickland was responsible for the entire shortfall in revenues.
The facts of this case are very similar to those in Morel v. State, 547 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), where the defendant, who was responsible for the daily receipts of the victims’ business, admitted stealing $1200. An auditor testified that the business had a $25,-000 shortfall during the relevant time period. However, there was no proof as to the cause of the shortfall. This court held that the state failed to meet its burden of establishing that the defendant caused damage to the victims in excess of $1200. See also Crosby v. State, 637 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (restitution amount improper where cattle owners could not connect loss of cattle to the defendant); Delks v. State, 622 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (restitution amount improper where landlord could not show that tenants had actually paid rents which defendant allegedly embezzled).
Because the state failed to meet its burden of proving that Strickland’s conduct caused the entire loss claimed, we reverse with directions to enter an amended order imposing restitution in the amount of $631.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
THREADGILL, C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of C.D.D. v. State, 684 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…hi's mother to pay $14,350 in restitution. Of that amount, the state did not present any evidence that C.D.D.’s offense caused the loss of the unaccounted for $6,450 or the $200 Tom Hicks admittedly took while acting alone. See Strickland v. State, 685 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (state did not meet burden of proving defendant’s conduct caused entire loss claimed); J.M.G. v. State, 629 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (there must be a causal relationship between child’s offense and loss to the victim); Dyer…
-
Ritch v. State, 14 So. 3d 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…efendant’s criminal episode or offense caused the victim’s loss, directly or indirectly. § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (2005). It is not enough to show merely that a business suffered losses contemporaneously with employee theft. See Strickland v. State, 685 So. 2d 1365, 1366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The defendant in Strickland, a waitress at a restaurant, had control tickets totaling $631 in her personal possession, representing money for which she had not accounted to her employer. Id. at 1365. Upon her conviction, th…
-
State v. Castro, 965 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…he offense and bears a significant relationship to the offense.” (emphasis added)). Absent an agreement, a defendant may not be required to pay restitution for unrelated offenses for which s/he has not been charged or convicted. Strickland v. State, 685 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Barnes v. State, 489 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (a defendant can’t.be ordered to pay restitution for uncharged offenses). Thus, in this case, there must be proof initially that the cause of the victim’s claimed losses was the…
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
- Delks v. State, 622 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Morel v. State, 547 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Paxson v. State, 637 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Blaine Crosby and Scott Crosby v. State, 637 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Ulysses Moore v. State, 643 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)