GLENN VEREEN, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a sentence requiring restitution to subcontractors despite defendant's prior execution of promissory notes, holding that the existence of a civil obligation does not preclude criminal restitution orders.
A trial court may order restitution to crime victims under section 775.089 even when the victim has received a promissory note or other enforceable civil obligation for the same loss.
[1] A criminal restitution order under section 775.089 is not precluded by the victim's possession of an enforceable civil obligation such as a promissory note, and any resti…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant pleaded no contest to misappropriating construction funds. Before sentencing, he executed promissory notes to subcontractors who had worked …
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 Victim Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment and sentence and write to address only appellant’s challenge to an aspect of his sentence.
Appellant entered a plea of no contest to the charge of misappropriating construction funds, in violation of section 713.345, Florida Statutes (1993). The trial court placed appellant on probation, and ordered him to pay restitution to the victims — the homeowners with whom appellant had contracted to build a home and various subcontractors who had worked on the job. Before the sentencing hearing, appellant executed promissory notes in favor of many of the subcontractors. Appellant argues that the court was precluded from ordering restitution in favor of those subcontractors who had received promissory notes.
The subcontractors were “victims” within the meaning of section 775.089(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1995). The fact that a victim has an enforceable civil obligation covering a loss does not divest the court of the power to order restitution under section 775.089. One purpose of the statute is to provide the victim full compensation. Restitution as a condition of probation contains coercive elements not available in civil court. Section 775.089(8), provides that any restitution paid “shall be set off against any subsequent independent civil recovery.”
POLEN, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kirby v. State, 863 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2003)…penses incurred to uncover the criminal activity. See Glaubius, 688 So. 2d at 915. Additionally, restitution ordered as part of a criminal sanction includes coercive elements not available in the enforcement of a civil judgment, see Vereen v. State, 703 So. 2d 1193, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), and may also take into consideration the timing of repayment: [*244] A restitution award may take into consideration that the timing of repayment may cause the victim to suffer additional loss. A final judgment in a civil…