P.H., 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.
P.H., a juvenile, appealed a restitution order totaling $640.98 imposed after a simple battery conviction. The appellate court affirmed restitution for the victim's property damage and ambulance services but reversed the portion awarding the victim's mother $240 in lost wages, holding that the mother does not qualify as a 'victim' under Florida's restitution statute.
The court held that the victim's mother does not qualify as a 'victim' under the statutory definition and therefore cannot recover restitution for her own lost wages. Restitution for victim's property damage and ambulance services was affirmed, but the $240 award for the mother's lost wages was reversed.
[1] Restitution may be awarded for property damage or loss, monetary expense, or physical injury or death suffered by a victim as a direct or indirect result of a defendant's…
[2] The statutory definition of "victim" for restitution purposes does not include the victim's family members unless the victim is deceased.
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 term "victim" as used in this section and in any provision of law relating to restitution means each person who suffers property damage or loss, monetary expense, or physical injury or death as a direct or indirect result of the defendant's offense or criminal episode, and also includes the victim's estate if the victim is deceased, and the victim's next of kin if the victim is deceased as a result of the offense.”
Establishes the statutory definition of 'victim' for restitution purposes, limiting recovery to those directly harmed or the victim's next of kin only if deceased.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceP.H. committed a simple battery resulting in property damage to the victim and medical transport expenses. The victim's mother claimed $240 in lost wa…
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 Restitution For Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, Judge.
P.H., a juvenile, appeals the trial court’s order setting restitution in the amount of $640.98, which was based on damage claims arising out of a simple battery. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We affirm, without comment, the restitution ordered by the trial judge regarding the battery victim’s damaged and lost property, as well as charges for Bayflight Ambulance Services incurred when the victim was transported to the hospital. However, the state concedes error that the victim’s mother’s claim for lost wages in the sum of $240 is not permitted under the statutory restitution definition of victim, and we agree.
Section 775.089(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), defines the term victim.
The term “victim” as used in this section and in any provision of law relating to restitution means each person who suffers property damage or loss, monetary expense, or physical injury or death as a direct or indirect result of the defendant’s offense or criminal episode, and also includes the victim’s estate if the victim is deceased, and the victim’s next of kin if the victim is deceased as a result of the offense.
§ 775.089(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (1997).
In Ocasio v. State, 586 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the court held that the mother of an attempted sexual assault child victim could not be awarded restitution for her own counseling required as the result of her daughter’s victimization because she did not meet the definition of a victim. In Gluesenkamp v. State, 636 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the defendant was convicted of DUI with serious bodily injury. The trial court awarded restitution to the victim’s parent’s for travel, telephone calls, and lost wages. The First District Court of Appeal reversed holding that the parents did not meet the statutory definition of victim since the victim was not deceased. See also Catoe v. State, 618 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (holding restitution could not be awarded to nondeceased victim’s family members).
Based upon the statute, we hold that the award of restitution in favor of the mother of the victim for lost wages is erroneous. The mother is not a victim within the meaning of section 775.089(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1997). Although the state argues that a part of the mother’s claim in this case should be affirmed because she provided home nursing care to her daughter, this contention must fail because the expense was never attributed to the victim and the mother cannot make such a claim in her own right. We therefore affirm the order setting restitution in the amount of $400.98 but reverse the order as it applies to the victim’s mother’s lost wages in the sum of $240.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
BLUE, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O.H. v. State, 948 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…(holding that a trial court order that untimely rules on a rule 3.800(b) motion is a nullity). However, the trial court correctly determined that O.H. should not be ordered to pay restitution for the victim’s mother’s lost wages. See P.H. v. State, 774 So. 2d 728, 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); J.S. v. State, 717 So. 2d 175, 176-77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); J.B. v. State, 646 So. 2d 808, 808-09 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Therefore, we reverse O.H.’s original order of restitution and remand for the trial court to enter a corre…
-
Hollingsworth v. State, 835 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…BROWNING, J. This is an appeal from an order granting restitution to the minor victim’s mother for the mother’s lost wages. Appellant relies on Gluesenkamp v. State, 636 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), P.H. v. State, 774 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), and Ocasio v. State, 586 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), all of which hold that the mother of a victim is not a “victim” for purposes of the restitution statute, section 775.089, Fla. Stat. We distinguish these cases and affirm…
Authorities Cited
- Efrain Ocasio v. State, 586 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Gluesenkamp v. State, 636 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Catoe v. State, 618 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)