THOMAS P. HALL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE. V.
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.
Thomas P. Hall appeals his convictions for organized securities fraud. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed Hall's convictions as supported by substantial competent evidence but partially reversed the sentencing, striking $28,533 in investigative costs lacking adequate documentation.
The convictions are affirmed as supported by substantial competent evidence. The full restitution amount was properly imposed under Florida law authorizing compensation for injuries directly or indirectly related to the offense. The $28,533 in investigative costs attributable to CPA services must be stricken due to lack of adequate documentation, reducing investigative costs to $14,261. The sentencing scoresheet issue is not reviewable because it was not preserved at trial and Hall agreed to the total points.
[1] A jury verdict is supported by substantial competent evidence when it is reasonable in light of the conflicting evidence presented.
[2] Restitution may be ordered for injuries indirectly related to the offense committed by the defendant.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Although there was conflicting evidence that the jury considered in arriving at its verdict of guilt, the verdict and judgment are supported by substantial competent evidence and we affirm.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing jury verdicts and affirms the convictions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHall was convicted of organized securities fraud offenses, some committed in concert with others. The sentencing court imposed restitution and investi…
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 Investigative Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, J.
Thomas P. Hall appeals his convictions related to an organized securities fraud. Although there was conflicting evidence that the jury considered in arriving at its verdict of guilt, the verdict and judgment are supported by substantial competent evidence and we affirm.
Hall also objects to the amount of the restitution imposed by the sentencing court, arguing that some of the restitution ordered was not sufficiently related to the offenses for which he was convicted. Subsection 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1997), allows compensation for those injuries directly or “indirectly’’ related to the offense committed by the defendant. Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913 (Fla.1997). Here, Hall committed some of the offenses in concert with others and we conclude it was within the trial court’s discretion to order the defendant to pay the full amount of the restitution awarded. Moore v. State, 664 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). We do find merit in Hall’s objection to the imposition of investigative costs. The state sought $42,794 for investigative costs and Hall objected to $28,533 of that total, the amount attributed to services performed by a CPA firm. Section 938.27, Florida Statutes (1997) authorizes imposition of these costs, but only after adequate documentation has been provided to the court. E.g., Smith v. State, 714 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The record is devoid of that necessary documentation and $28,533 of the $42,794 imposed is stricken so that the final assessment for investigative costs is $14,261.
Finally, Hall objects for the first time on appeal to the assessment of 112 points on his scoresheet because the charge of conspiracy to commit racketeering was scored as a level eight offense, rather than a level seven. Unfortunately, the issue was not preserved for our review and Hall specifically agreed to the total points reflected on his scoresheet. § 924.051, Fla. Stat. (1997); e.g. Medina v. State, 732 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. granted, 718 So. 2d 169 (Fla.1998).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
COBB and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schneider v. State, 972 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…de_” § 775.089(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2006). To order restitution under the statute, the court must find that the loss or damage is causally connected to the defendant’s offense. See Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913 (Fla.1997); see also Hall v. State, 760 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Cheek v. State, 700 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Only those damages or losses which flow from defendant’s criminal activity may be assessed as restitution. See Chapman v. State, 733 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). For restitu…
Authorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1997)
- Smith v. State, 714 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Moore v. State, 664 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Medina v. State, 732 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)