STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
FREDERICK WILLIAMS, 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 State appeals a restitution order for a victim of aggravated battery, contending the trial court erred by excluding lost income from the restitution award. The appellate court agrees that lost income is a proper basis for restitution under Florida law and remands for the trial court to calculate and include such damages.
Lost income may provide a valid basis for a restitution award. The trial court erred in denying restitution for lost income based on the belief that civil courts are a more appropriate venue, as the Legislature has determined that criminal courts are an appropriate forum for awarding such losses. The victim is entitled to restitution for lost income unless the court finds clear and compelling reasons to deny it.
[1] Lost income may provide a basis for a restitution award in a criminal case.
[2] A trial court's belief that civil courts are a more appropriate venue for lost wage claims is not a sufficient reason to deny restitution for proven lost income.
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“Lost income may provide a basis for a restitution award. See § 775.089(2)(a)3., Fla. Stat. (2000); Vanlieu v. State, 630 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).”
Establishes that lost income is a recognized and valid basis for restitution under Florida statutory law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrederick Williams committed an aggravated battery on Eduardo Macias-Castan, causing fractured facial bones, a fractured jaw, and significant medical …
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 Victim Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
The State of Florida appeals a restitution order entered by the trial court which failed to include an award for income lost by the victim, Eduardo Macias-Castan, as a result of the aggravated battery committed on him by the defendant, Frederick Williams. We agree that the failure to properly consider such an award was error and remand the matter for further proceedings.
Frederick Williams was found guilty of committing an aggravated battery on Mr. Macias-Castan, who sustained fractured bones in his face, a fractured jaw and other significant medical and emotional injuries as a consequence of Williams’s crime. As a result of the injuries he sustained, Mr. Macias-Castan’s ability to work was severely limited. An evidentiary hearing was conducted on the State’s motion for restitution and the trial court ordered restitution for Mr. Maeias-Castan’s medical bills. The court declined to award any lost income to Mr. Macias-Castan, concluding that “the civil courts are the more appropriate venue to comprehensively address the lost wages” sustained by the victim.
Lost income may provide a basis for a restitution award. See § 775.089(2)(a)3., Fla. Stat. (2000); Vanlieu v. State, 630 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Here, the unrebutted evidence demonstrates that Mr. Macias-Castan lost income as a direct result of Williams’s aggravated battery on him. Consequently, he is entitled to an award of restitution unless the court finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution. See § 775.089(l)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2000). Because the Legislature has determined that the criminal courts are an appropriate forum for the award of such losses, the trial court’s belief that the civil courts would be a more appropriate venue to address the lost wage claim is not a sufficient reason to deny restitution for any lost income that can be satisfactorily proved.
We remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings to determine the amount of Mr. Macias-Castan’s loss of income and whether the restitution order should include such sums for this purpose. Vanlieu, 630 So. 2d at 1219.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HARRIS and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Koile v. State, 902 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…ivil obligation exists prior to sentencing. See Id. at 244. The mere fact that a lost wage claim may also be com-pensable civilly is not a bar to awarding such losses as part of restitution, provided the prerequisites are met. See State v. Williams, 805 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). As noted earlier, restitution requires findings by the tidal court that the loss or damage is causally connected to the offense, either directly or indirectly, and bears a significant relationship to the offense. See Bernard. H…
-
Medeiros v. State, 846 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. Habeas petitions cannot be used for additional appeals on questions which could have been, should have been, or were raised on appeal or in a rule 3.850 motion, or on matters that were not objected to at trial. See Riggens v. State, 805 So. 2d 1082 [*1221] (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (citing Parker v. Dugger, 550 So. 2d 459, 460 (Fla.1989)). AFFIRMED. THOMPSON, C.J., SAWAYA and TORPY, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Vanlieu v. State, 630 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)