FELIPE DAVIS, 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 Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed a restitution order against Davis for attempted burglary, holding that the State failed to establish a significant causal connection between the defendant's attempted burglary conviction and the victim's loss of personal property.
A defendant may not be ordered to pay restitution for damages or loss unless there is a significant relationship between the damage and the crime proved. Here, because Davis was convicted only of attempted burglary and not theft, and theft was not alleged as the intended offense, there was no significant relationship between his conviction and the victim's loss of property.
[1] A defendant may be ordered to pay restitution only for damages or loss causally connected to the offense for which the defendant was convicted.
[2] A significant relationship must exist between the damage to the victim and the crime proved for restitution to be ordered.
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“a defendant may be ordered to pay restitution "for damages or loss caused by the defendant's offense." § 775.089(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). Although the connection need not be direct, there must be a significant relationship between the damage to the victim and the crime proved.”
Establishes the legal standard for restitution requiring a significant relationship between damage and the crime of conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis was charged with burglary of a dwelling with intent to commit an offense therein. He pleaded nolo contendere to attempted burglary. At the resti…
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 Fundamental Error cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant challenges the propriety of the court’s restitution order. He argues that he should not be required to pay restitution because the State did not prove that the victim’s loss or damage was causally connected to appellant’s offense of attempted burglary. Although the State first attempts to argue the issue, it concludes its brief by conceding error. We agree that the court erred in ordering appellant to pay restitution.
Appellant was initially charged with burglary of a dwelling. The information specifically alleged that appellant had “unlawfully entered or remained in a certain dwelling, the property of Leslie Gaines, with intent to commit an offense therein.” Appellant pleaded nolo to attempted burglary. At the plea hearing, when the court announced that it would require appellant to pay restitution, appellant did not object.
At the restitution hearing, the victim testified that a number of items had been taken from his front porch and that the window of the front porch had been broken. The victim also testified to the value of the items taken. Appellant objected on the ground of relevance, arguing that his conviction for attempted burglary did not substantially connect him to the items taken. We agree.
The restitution statute provides that a defendant may be ordered to pay restitution “for damages or loss caused by the defendant’s offense.” § 775.089(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). Although the connection need not be direct, there must be a significant relationship between the damage to the victim and the crime proved. See Dyer v. State, 622 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla.1988); Jones v. State, 480 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Here, appellant was charged with burglary, not theft. Theft was not even listed as the offense appellant intended to commit once inside the Gaines residence. Appellant pleaded to attempted burglary, again with no mention of theft or the items taken. By pleading to attempted burglary, he only admitted to attempting to enter with the intent to commit some offense once inside. We simply cannot say that there was a significant relationship between appellant’s nolo plea to attempted burglary and the victim’s loss of the missing items.
Although it may be argued that appellant’s failure to object at the plea colloquy prevented him from raising this issue on appeal, we believe that the error here was fundamental because to require appellant to pay restitution here would amount to imposing a punishment for an offense that appellant did not commit. See Ashford v. State, 274 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1973).
Because we conclude that the court erred in ordering appellant to.pay restitution, we reverse.
WHATLEY and STRINGER, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.J.N. v. State, 977 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…awarded for damages related to the defendant’s criminal episode but ultimately concluded that the State had not proved the requisite nexus. G.C. is therefore distinguishable on this evidentia-ry basis from the instant case. See also Davis v. State, 741 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d [*773] DCA 1999) (holding that restitution was improper where theft of jewelry was not related to offense of attempted burglary and where there was no indication that State presented evidence that theft of the jewelry was part of the defend…
-
G.C. v. State, 944 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…s would not have occurred but for the trespass. See, e.g., Socorro v. State, 901 So. 2d 940, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“[I]f ‘but for’ the criminal episode, damages would not have been incurred by the victim, restitution is proper.”); Davis v. State, 741 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (reversing restitution for stolen items when defendant pleaded to attempted burglary, not theft, and there was no significant relationship between offense and victim’s loss). Because the State failed to prove the causation or nexu…
-
K.N. v. State, 61 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…the loss would not have occurred but for the trespass. See Socorro v. State, 901 So. 2d 940, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“[I]f ‘but for’ the criminal episode, damages would not have been incurred by the victim, restitution is proper.”); Davis v. State, 741 So. 2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (reversing restitution for stolen items when the defendant pled to attempted burglary, not theft). Because it failed to do so K.N. should not have been ordered to pay for these losses. As our sister court in G.C. v. State,…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1988)
- Ashford v. State, 274 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1973)
- Jones v. State, 480 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Dyer v. State, 622 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)