MICHAEL CHEEK, 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 for damages caused by a crash is improper when the driver's suspended license was not causally related to the crash.
Appellant caused a crash while driving with a suspended license. The trial court ordered restitution for the damages caused by the crash.…
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 Criminal Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of restitution in a driving with a suspended license case. We quash the order. Appellant backed an automobile into the roadway into the path of another vehicle, causing a crash. At the time he was operating the car his driving privileges had been suspended by the state, so he was charged with driving on a suspended license. At his sentencing the judge ordered him to pay restitution for the damages caused by the crash. Numerous cases hold this was error because the fact that his license was suspended was not causally related to the crash. State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla.1988); Longshore v. State, 655 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Ochoa v. State, 596 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Stewart v. State, 571 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). See Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913 (Fla.1997).
Whether one agrees with the cases is not determinative of whether they must be adhered to. The order must be quashed.
ORDER QUASHED.
THOMPSON, J., concurs.
W. SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.
W. SHARP, Judge,
dissenting.
I would affirm the order of restitution in this ease pursuant to section 775.089(l)(a)2., Florida Statutes (1995). The loss or damage to the victim’s vehicle clearly was “related to” the defendant’s criminal episode.
Section 775.089 governs restitution in criminal cases. This section had previously required the trial court to order the defendant to make restitution to the victim only for “damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense.” See, e.g., § 775.089(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1992). The Florida Supreme Court interpreted this provision to mean that the trial court must find that the loss or damage was causally connected to the offense and bore a significant relationship to the offense. See Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913 (Fla.1997); State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla.1988).
However, in 1993, section 775.089 was significantly amended to include an additional restitutionary obligation. Ch. 93-37, § 1, Laws of Florida. See J.O.S. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1061, 1063, n. 10 (Fla.1997).
According to the preamble, one purpose of the act was to expand the criteria for ordering restitution. Thus the present restitution statute must be interpreted as requiring the imposition of restitution for 1) any damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense and 2) for any damage or loss significantly1 related .to the defendant’s criminal episode.
Here Cheek hit another vehicle as he was backing his automobile out of his driveway into the road. At the time, Cheek’s driver’s license had been suspended. Thus, Cheek’s criminal episode began when he started driving without a valid license. The restitution imposed by the trial court — the damages to the other vehicle — clearly have a significant relationship to the criminal episode. In these circumstances, I would affirm.
. The "significant relationship” also applies to this restitution provision. See J.O.S., 689 So. 2d at 1064.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schuette v. State, 822 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2002)…PARIENTE, J. We have for review State v. Schuette, 782 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), a decision from the Fourth District Court of Appeal that certified conflict with the decision from the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Cheek v. State, 700 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), on the issue of whether restitution must be ordered for damages arising out of an automobile accident that occurs while the defendant is driving with a suspended license. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.…1 / 2
-
Triplett v. State, 709 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…r prior precedent of Longshore v. State, 655 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), I concur that the award of restitution must be reversed. I also concur with the misgivings expressed by Judge Griffin in respect to the majority opinion in Cheek v. State, 700 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).…1 / 2
-
State v. Schuette, 782 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…93-37, § 1, at 198, Laws of Fla. Nevertheless, even after the 1993 amendment, the fifth district followed the second district’s lead in denying restitution following a defendant’s conviction for driving with a suspended license. See Cheek v. State, 700 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Although the fifth district has not receded from Cheek, the court now appears to agree with Judge Sharp’s dissent in that case. See Triplett v. State, 709 So. 2d 107, 108 n. 3 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 725 So. 2d 1110 (Fla.1…
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
- Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1997)
- State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1988)
- J.O.S. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1997)
- Floyd v. State, 571 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Eliazar Juan Ochoa v. State, 596 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Longshore v. State, 655 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)