JAMES A. WILLIAMSON, 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.
James Williamson appealed his conviction and sentence for attempted sexual battery and lewd and lascivious assault on a child. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reversed and remanded the sentence in Count II due to a plea agreement violation, and also reversed the restitution order requiring payment for the victim's parents' counseling expenses.
The court affirmed the judgment on the convictions but reversed the sentence in Count II and remanded for resentencing in accordance with the plea agreement or to allow withdrawal of the plea. The court also reversed the restitution order requiring payment for the victim's parents' or guardian's counseling expenses because family members do not fall within the statutory definition of 'victim' unless deceased.
[1] A trial court must resentence a defendant in accordance with a plea agreement or allow the defendant to withdraw their plea if the court does not intend to sentence accor…
[2] Restitution for counseling expenses of a victim's parents or guardian is improper unless the victim is deceased as a result of the offense.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“While we affirm the judgment, we reverse the sentence imposed in Count II and remand for resentencing either in accordance with Williamson's plea agreement, or if the trial court does not sentence Williamson pursuant to the agreement, to permit him to withdraw his plea.”
Establishes the core holding regarding the sentence violation and remedy available
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliamson pleaded guilty to attempted sexual battery and lewd and lascivious assault upon a child under 16. He was sentenced following this plea, and…
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 Lewd And Lascivious Assault Upon A Child cases and more on FLexlaw
GOSHORN, Judge.
James Williamson appeals the judgment and sentence imposed following his guilty plea to attempted sexual battery1 and lewd and lascivious assault upon a child under the age of 16.2 While we affirm the judgment, we reverse the sentence imposed in Count II and remand for resentencing either in accordance with Williamson’s plea agreement, or if the trial court does not sentence Williamson pursuant to the agreement, to permit him to withdraw his plea. See Hooks v. State, 613 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); see also Baldwin v. State, 558 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Williamson also argues that it was error to impose restitution for the victim’s parents’ or guardian’s counseling expenses. The state properly concedes error. See Gluesenkamp v. State, 636 So. 2d 1367, 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“Family members do not fall within the statutory definition of ‘victim’ unless the aggrieved party is deceased as a result of the offense.”); Ocasio v. State, 586 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (holding that mother of child victim was not entitled to recover restitution for her own personal psychological injuries, vicariously suffered as result of child’s experience, because mother was not “victim” within meaning of statute providing for restitution as child was not deceased). Accordingly, we direct the trial court to delete that portion of the special condition of probation mentioning the victim’s parents’ or guardian’s counseling costs. In all other respects, the sentence is affirmed.
REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED.
PETERSON, C.J., and SHARP, W., J., concur. . §§ 777.04, 794.011(2), 794.011(1), Fla. Stat. (1995).
. § 800.04(3), Fla. Stat. (1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mastrantoni v. State, 722 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…o sell the leased car.3 We strike Carson’s claim for restitution for the cost of psychiatric care for her son because the son was not a victim as defined by the restitution statute, paragraph 775.089(l)(c), Florida Statutes. See Williamson v. State, 687 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (error to impose restitution for victim’s parents’ or guardian’s counseling expenses); Gluesenkamp v. State, 636 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“Family members do not fall within the statutory definition of “victim” unless the…
Authorities Cited
- Baldwin v. State, 558 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Efrain Ocasio v. State, 586 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Gluesenkamp v. State, 636 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- O'Connor v. Inman, 613 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)