THOMAS LEONARD SHEPPARD, 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 conviction for fraudulent insurance claim and grand theft but reversed restitution order because Division of Insurance Fraud is not a victim entitled to restitution under section 775.089.
The Division of Insurance Fraud cannot receive restitution as a victim under section 775.089, Florida Statutes, though investigative costs may be sought as costs of conviction under section 938.27.
[1] The Division of Insurance Fraud is not a victim entitled to receive restitution under section 775.089, Florida Statutes, but the State may seek investigative costs as cos…
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 intelligenceThomas Leonard Sheppard was convicted of filing a fraudulent insurance claim and grand theft. The trial court ordered him to pay restitution to both U…
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 Insurance Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Leonard Sheppard appeals his judgment and sentence for filing a fraudulent insurance claim, a violation of section 817.234, Florida Statutes (1997), and for grand theft, a violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1997). Mr. Sheppard also appeals an order imposing restitution. We affirm Mr. Sheppard’s judgment and sentence without comment, but we reverse and remand the restitution order. The trial court ordered Mr. Sheppard to pay restitution to the victim, USAA Insurance Company, and to Division of Insurance Fraud. It appears the trial court committed no error when setting the amounts Mr. Sheppard was to reimburse these two entities for their respective investigative costs. However, the trial court’s restitution order fails to distinguish between restitution, governed by section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1997), and costs of conviction, governed by section 938.27, Florida Statutes (1997). The Division of Insurance Fraud is not a “victim” in this case and cannot receive restitution. See Sam (Seam) v. State, 741 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). As in Sam, the State is not precluded from seeking these costs on remand provided it complies with section 938.27, Florida Statutes (1997).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., ALTENBERND, and WHATLEY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wyon Dale Childers v. State, 936 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…(2002). See, e.g., Lewis v. State, 874 So. 2d at 18, 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (finding that “the sheriff’s office does not meet the statutory definition of Victim’ ”); Jones v. State, 846 So. 2d at 662-63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (same); Sheppard v. State, 753 So. 2d 748, 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“The Division of Insurance Fraud is not a ‘victim’ in this case and cannot receive restitution.’’); Sims v. State, 746 So. 2d 546, 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“The State does not qualify as a victim for payment of restitution...…1 / 3
-
Smith v. State, 801 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), receded from on other grounds, Locke v. State, 719 So. 2d 1249 (Fla.1998). Smith further submits that the county commission “is not a victim in this case and can not receive restitution.” He relies on Sheppard v. State, 753 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), and Sam (Seam) v. State, 741 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), for this proposition. In Sheppard and Sam, the trial court had ordered restitution for costs that were not in fact restitution to victims, but rather were investigative…
-
Albertie v. State, 979 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…RIAA falls directly within the category of affected, but non-victim, third parties to which restitution may not be awarded. See Lewis v. State, 874 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Jones v. State, 846 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Sheppard v. State, 753 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Eloshway v. State, 553 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), review denied, 564 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1990). Reversed. . Section 775.089(l)(c) provides: The term "victim” as used in this section and in any provision of law relating to re…
Authorities Cited
- Rohit K. SAM (Seam) v. State, 741 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)