TIMOTHY COOLEY, 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 court held that a trial court must determine that a defendant's criminal act caused the victim's injury before ordering restitution for that injury.
Timothy Cooley was convicted of battery but acquitted of aggravated battery. The trial court ordered restitution for medical expenses and lost income …
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 Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
Timothy Cooley appeals the order of restitution imposed following his conviction for battery. We reverse because the trial court failed to make a determination that the battery caused the injury which was the basis for the order of restitution.
The state charged Cooley with Count (1) aggravated battery on William C. Geiler, and Count (2) battery on William C. Geiler. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on Count (1) and guilty on Count (2). The trial court entered an order of restitution requiring Cooley to pay $8,814.27 for medical and related expenses, plus $5948 for loss of income.
The record indicates that Geiler attended a party where he suffered a fractured leg requiring surgery. However, it is not clear from the record whether Geiler’s injury occurred when he fell down some steps prior to the time that Cooley committed the battery, or during the battery.
Although a fractured leg requiring surgery would satisfy one of the elements (great bodily harm) in an aggravated battery charge, the jury acquitted Cooley of aggravated battery. A court cannot order the defendant to pay restitution for damages arising out of a crime for which he was acquitted. Barkley v. State, 585 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). See also State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla.1988) (court cannot impose restitution for damages which transpired independent of the crime).
Additionally, the trial court did not make a determination that Cooley caused the victim’s broken leg. Therefore, we are compelled to remand with instructions for the trial court to determine whether the victim’s injury was a result of the battery. See F.J.O. v. State, 548 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (error in failing to make a determination that the victim’s injury was the result of the criminal offense).
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and DAKAN, STEPHEN L., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryann Acosta v. State, 856 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…urt erred by assessing him $14,581 in restitution. Acosta asserts that this order is contrary to the jury’s finding that Acosta was guilty of the lesser included offense of petit theft of property worth less than $300. We agree. In Cooley v. State, 686 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), the Second District held that “[a] court cannot order the defendant to pay restitution for damages arising out of a crime for which he was acquitted.” In Cooley, the defendant was charged with aggravated battery, but found guilty…
-
Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…with the case law. However, we also conclude that even if the jury instruction was error, it was harmless. The victim’s orbital fracture, swelling, and bruising in this case, was sufficient evidence of great bodily harm. See, e.g., Cooley v. State, 686 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)(fractured leg requiring surgery constituted great bodily harm); Coronado, 654 So. 2d at 1270 (facial fracture, numbness, and pain around the eye constitutes great bodily harm); Owens v. State, 289 So. 2d 472, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974…
-
State v. Tomasheski, 168 So. 3d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)….O.S. In Acosta, we held that restitution is limited by the monetary value ceiling associated with the crime of which the defendant is convicted. Acosta, 856 So. 2d at 1145. We relied upon a Second District Court of Appeal decision, Cooley v. State, 686 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), that predated our supreme court’s decision in J.O.S. Nevertheless, because this case involves a value range, and not a monetary value limit, we need not recede from Acosta to resolve the issue. The trial court failed to apply th…
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
- State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1988)
- Barkley v. State, 585 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- In the Interest of F.J.O. v. State, 548 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)