THOMAS MITCHEL HOLLINGSWORTH, 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.
Appellant challenged a restitution award to the crime victim's mother for lost wages. The court affirmed, holding that under the 1994 amended restitution statute, a victim's mother qualifies as a 'victim' if she suffered monetary expenses or other specified harms directly or indirectly caused by the offense.
The victim's mother is entitled to restitution under the 1994 amended version of section 775.089(1)(c), which defines 'victim' to include any person who suffers monetary expense or other specified harm as a direct or indirect result of the defendant's offense. Lost wages qualify as a basis for restitution when caused by the offense.
[1] A victim's mother may be entitled to restitution for lost wages if she suffers monetary expense as a direct or indirect result of the defendant's offense.
[2] Lost wages can constitute a basis for a restitution award under Florida Statutes section 775.089.
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.”
The 1994 amended statutory definition of 'victim' that governs the case and establishes that mothers can qualify as victims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA crime was committed against a minor victim. The victim's mother lost wages because she was unable to work due to emotional turmoil caused by the def…
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.
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 the award of restitution.
Gluesenkamp and Ocasio both apply the pre-1994 version of the restitution statute, which defined “victim” as “the aggrieved party, the aggrieved party’s estate if the aggrieved party is deceased, and the aggrieved party’s next of kin if the aggrieved party is deceased as a result of the offense.” § 775.089(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (1993). The two cases explicitly hold, in accordance with that definition, that family members of a victim are not entitled to restitution unless the aggrieved party is deceased. P.H., although decided more recently, relies on the two older cases to reach its result.
The restitution statute was amended in 1994 to read, as it reads today,
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(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2002). Under this definition, it is clear that a victim’s mother could be entitled to restitution if she suffered property damage or loss, monetary expense, or physical injury or death. In the instant case, there is evidence that the victim’s mother lost wages as a result of being unable to go to work because of the emotional turmoil caused by Appellant’s offense. Lost wages may be the basis for a restitution award. Graham v. State, 720 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); § 775.089(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). Thus, the victim’s mother is entitled to restitution under the applicable version of section 775.089, Florida Statutes, and competent substantial evidence supports such award.
AFFIRMED.
DAVIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Koile v. State, 934 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2006)…d losses.7 This is consistent with the way section 775.089 has always been applied in our courts. See, e.g., Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913, 916 (FIa.1997) (approving award of restitution for victim’s investigative costs); Hollingsworth v. State, 835 So. 2d 373, 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (approving restitution for wages lost by mother of victim during time she was too upset by crime to go to work). Even if the term “reimburse” is construed to authorize restitution to a surviving victim for lost future incom…
-
Koile v. State, 902 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…ndependently of, each other. Id. In this connection this Court has previously held that lost wages may provide a sufficient basis for a restitution award. See Graham v. State, 720 So. 2d 294, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); see also Hollingsworth v. State, 835 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). IV. Lost wages for next of kin for attendance at trial. Consider, first, whether the statute permits an award of lost wages to the parents of the decedent. The definition of victim contained in the statute specifically include…
-
Burke v. State, 855 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ntitled to relief. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d). The trial court attached only a “Progress of Case” sheet. This was insufficient for two reasons. First, the document appears to be clerk’s notes, rather than a portion of the record. See Collins v. State, 835 So. 2d 373, 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), citing Mayo v. State, 825 So. 2d 1006, 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(noting that “the records attached to the trial court’s order denying relief appear to be nothing more than clerk’s notes and do not conclusively refute the cla…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Efrain Ocasio v. State, 586 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Gluesenkamp v. State, 636 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Javon Graham v. State, 720 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- P.H. v. State, 774 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)