SEAN MCMONAGLE, 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 restitution must be for damages related to the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced, not unrelated offenses.
MeMonagle pleaded nolo contendere to unlawful use of a credit card and was placed on probation. He later violated probation by failing to pay supervis…
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.
In this appeal, Sean MeMonagle challenges the trial court’s revocation of his probation and the trial court’s order of restitution. We find no error in the determination that MeMonagle violated his probation, and affirm the revocation without discussion. However, the trial court erred by ordering restitution for damages unrelated to the crime for which MeMonagle was being convicted and sentenced.
On October 2, 1992, MeMonagle was charged with unlawful use of a credit card to obtain goods, in violation of section 817.61, Florida Statutes (1991). He pleaded nolo contendere and was placed on six months of community control followed by eighteen months of probation. In December 1993, MeMonagle was arrested for violating his probation by failing to pay his cost of supervision and by committing the offense of grand theft. After a hearing, the trial court found that MeMonagle had violated both probation conditions, revoked his probation and sentenced him to thirty months in prison. The court also ordered MeMonagle to pay $628.00 as restitution for the theft.
Restitution is properly awarded for damages related to the crime for which a defendant is being sentenced. See Bowen v. State, 646 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Ochoa v. State, 596 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In this case the restitution that was ordered to be paid was not related to the 1992 charge for which MeMonagle was being sentenced upon revocation of probation. Therefore, the restitution award was error and must be reversed. In all other respects, the judgment and sentence is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lopez v. State, 718 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…concedes, and we agree, that the trial court erred in ordering restitution on the grand theft conviction for damages sustained by the victims in fifteen separate crimes which ultimately resulted in misdemeanor convictions.1 See McMonagle v. State, 696 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (error to require defendant to pay restitution for damages occurring in crime unrelated to crime for which he was being sentenced). [*1263] Accordingly, we remand to the trial court to strike that portion of the probation order re…
Authorities Cited
- Eliazar Juan Ochoa v. State, 596 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Bowen v. State, 646 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Milline v. State, 646 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)