WILLIAM D. SIMPSON, 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.
William Simpson was convicted of second degree murder in the shooting death of his girlfriend and challenged his conviction and sentence on six grounds. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and most sentencing aspects, but reversed certain restitution awards to the victim's mother that were deemed indirect or remote, and struck an unanounced cost.
The conviction for second degree murder is affirmed. However, the court reverses restitution awards for the victim's mother's airfare, lost wages, remains transportation, death announcements, stress-related illness, and long-distance telephone calls because they are either indirect, remote, or not satisfactorily proven. The $2 cost imposed under section 943.25(13) is stricken because it was not orally pronounced at sentencing. The probation condition prohibiting weapons possession is affirmed.
[1] Restitution awards must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence to be caused by the offense and have a significant connection between the crime and the victim's loss…
[2] Restitution is not appropriate for losses that are indirect, remote, or not satisfactorily proven.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the loss was caused by the offense before restitution is appropriate.”
Establishes the evidentiary standard required for restitution orders, requiring proof that losses were caused by the offense.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Simpson was charged with and tried for first degree murder in the shooting death of his girlfriend, Marie Lerner. A jury found him guilty of s…
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 Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
William Simpson was charged with first degree murder following the shooting death of his girlfriend, Marie Lerner. He was tried before a jury, which found him guilty of second degree murder. Simpson raises six issues concerning his conviction and sentence. We find no merit in his challenges to the conviction, and we affirm the conviction without discussion. But we reverse certain aspects of the restitution that Simpson was ordered to pay, and strike one of the assessed costs. We affirm the challenged probation condition.
We reverse certain restitution awards to the victim’s mother because they are either indirect, remote or not satisfactorily proven. The State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the loss was caused by the offense before restitution is appropriate. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat. (1995). There must be a significant connection between the crime committed and the victim’s loss. State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla.1988). In particular, the restitution order awarded the victim’s mother $1,007.91 for her airfare from her home in Hawaii to the funeral, $1,250 for two weeks that she did not work because of her attendance at the funeral, $445 for flying her daughter’s remains to another Hawaiian island .to dispose of the ashes, $146.78 for death announcements, approximately $130 for her stress-related illness suffered a year after her daughter’s death and $104.20 for long distance telephone calls to the state attorney’s office. We reverse these items in the restitution award because they are either indirect, remote or not satisfactorily proven.
We note that the trial court failed to orally announce that portion of the second sentence of probation condition (4) that prohibits him from possessing, carrying or owning any weapons without first procuring the consent of his probation officer. However, the oral announcement was unnecessary after the standard conditions were published in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1996); Houston v. State, 701 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Finally, we strike the $2 cost imposed under section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1995), which was not orally pronounced at sentencing. See Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and $2 cost stricken.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1996)
- State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1988)
- Houston v. State, 701 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)