L.H., A CHILD, 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.
L.H., a juvenile, was convicted of shooting a deadly missile and criminal mischief. The court reversed the portion of the restitution order requiring payment of $1,834.40 in lost wages and $200 for job search expenses, finding these items lacked a significant relationship to the crimes committed.
The court held that the $1,834.40 in lost wages and $200 in job search expenses do not bear a significant relationship to the crimes and thus cannot be imposed as restitution. However, restitution for car repair costs of $14.15 (victim's payment) and $1,185.77 (insurance company payment) was proper and affirmed.
[1] Restitution ordered must bear a significant relationship to the convicted offense.
[2] A causal connection between the criminal conduct and the loss claimed by the victim is a factor in determining if a significant relationship exists for restitution purpos…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“For restitution to be deemed reasonable, it must bear a significant relationship to the convicted offense.”
Establishes the foundational legal standard governing restitution orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceL.H. damaged the victim's car through criminal conduct. The victim subsequently sought alternative transportation, which proved unreliable, causing hi…
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 Significant Relationship Test For Restitution cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, J.
L.H., a juvenile, was convicted on charges of shooting a deadly missile and criminal mischief. We reverse that portion of the delinquency order directing L.H. to pay restitution of $3,231.32.1
We find no error in that portion of the order requiring L.H. to reimburse car repair costs of $14.15 paid by the victim and $1,185.77 paid by the insurance company. However, the record reflects that the balance of the ordered restitution, $1,834.40 in lost wages incurred after the victim was fired for being late for work, and $200 as reimbursement for fuel and other expenses related to the victim’s job search, is not significantly related to the crimes for which he was convicted.
For restitution to. be deemed reasonable, it must bear a significant relationship to the convicted offense. See J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737, 738 (Fla.1985). A factor in determining whether a significant relationship exists is whether there is a causal connection between the criminal conduct and the loss claimed by the victim. J.S. v. State, 717 So. 2d 175, 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). In J.S., this court held that wages lost as a result of the victim’s attendance at court proceedings did not bear a “significant relationship” to the underlying criminal offenses. Id.; see also J.M. v. State, 658 So. 2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)(error to order restitution for a security alarm the victim installed after the burglary).
The offending portion of the restitution in this case is based on a chain of events in which L.H. damaged the victim’s car, the damage done to the car caused the victim to seek transportation elsewhere, the new source of transportation was unreliable and he began to arrive late for work, and due to his late arrival on more than one occasion, the victim’s employer fired him. Because his employer fired him, the victim had to seek new employment and, while looking for new employment, he expended $200 in gas.
We recognize that restitution serves a broader purpose than mere compensation of the -victim; it also serves the rehabilitative, deterrent, and retributive goals of the criminal justice system. Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913, 915 (Fla.1997); J.K. v. State, 695 So. 2d 868, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Nevertheless, a “significant relationship” analysis is required. J.S., 717 So. 2d at 176-77. We note that, here, the offense did not result in bodily injury to the victim.
All other issues raised on appeal are moot. We remand for modification of the order. KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur. . We note the existence of an error in the trial court's calculation; however, the error, amounting to a $4.00 discrepancy, is demi-nimis.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Koile v. State, 934 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2006)…finding that both of these prongs were not met. See, e.g., Schuette; State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla.1988); Ochoa v. State, 596 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Stewart v. State, 571 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). For example, in L.H. v. State, 803 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), the defendant was convicted of shooting a deadly missile and criminal mischief, which damaged the victim’s car. The trial court initially awarded the victim $14.15 to cover car repair costs, $1,834.40 in lost wages incurred afte…
-
Koile v. State, 902 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…m, pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary funeral and related services. (Emphasis added). For restitution to be deemed reasonable, it must bear a significant relationship to the offense of which the defendant is convicted. See L.H. v. State, 803 So. 2d 862, 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). One factor to be considered in this regard is whether there is a causal connection between the criminal conduct and the loss claimed by the victim. Id. Before ordering restitution, therefore, the trial court must find that…
-
Schneider v. State, 972 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…icant relationship to the offense of which the defendant is convicted, and one factor to be [*1081] considered in this regard is whether there is a causal connection between the criminal conduct and the loss claimed by the victim. See L.H. v. State, 803 So. 2d 862, 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The causation and significant relationship tests involved in determining restitution for an offense work in conjunction with, and not independently of, each other. See § 775.089(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006); Bernard, v. State,…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1997)
- J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1985)
- J.S. v. State, 717 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- J.K. v. State, 695 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- J.M. v. State, 658 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)