G.C., 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.
The court reversed a restitution order requiring G.C. to pay for a stolen all-terrain vehicle where the defendant pleaded no contest only to trespass charges, not theft. The State failed to establish the requisite causal nexus between the trespass offense and the victim's loss of the vehicle required by Florida restitution law.
The restitution order must be reversed because the State failed to prove the required causal nexus between the trespass offense and the victim's loss. Florida restitution law requires both a 'but for' causation requirement and a 'significant relationship' requirement between the offense and the loss.
[1] Restitution awards require proof of a nexus between the defendant's offense and the victim's loss, including both 'but for' causation and a 'significant relationship' req…
[2] A defendant's no contest plea to trespass does not, by itself, establish causation for the loss of property stolen during a separate, nol prossed grand theft charge.
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“restitution is awarded for damage or loss "caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense" and "related to the defendant's criminal episode,"”
Establishes the statutory requirements for restitution under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceG.C. allegedly entered property owned by D.B. Construction and took an all-terrain vehicle. He was initially charged with grand theft of a motor vehic…
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 Property Other Than a Structure or Conveyance cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
We reverse the restitution G.C. was ordered to pay because the State failed to prove a nexus between the victim’s loss and the trespass charges admitted in G.C.’s no contest plea.
G.C. allegedly entered the property of D.B. Construction and took an all-terrain vehicle called a “Gator cart.” He was charged with grand theft of a motor vehicle, § 812.014(2)(c)(6), Fla. Stat. (2004); burglary of a conveyance, § 810.02(4)(b); and trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance, § 810.09(l)(a), (2)(a). Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the State nol prossed the grand theft charge, and G.C. pleaded no contest to trespass in a conveyance, § 810.08(1), as a lesser of the burglary charge, and trespass on property.
The State sought restitution for the loss of the Gator cart, which was apparently never recovered. G.C. objected and argued that there was no nexus between the trespass charges to which he pleaded and damages for the loss of the Gator cart. When established by a preponderance of the evidence, § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (2004), restitution is awarded for damage or loss “caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense” and “related to the defendant’s criminal episode,” § 775.089(l)(a). See also § 985.231(l)(a)(6) (allowing court to order restitution “for any damage or loss caused by the child’s offense”). The Florida Supreme Court has explained that restitution awards must be based on “both a ‘but for’ causation requirement and a ‘significant relationship’ requirement.” Schuette v. State, 822 So. 2d 1275, 1282 (Fla.2002).
By pleading no contest to trespass, G.C. admitted only to entering or remaining in the vehicle without permission. See § 810.08(1). He did not admit to grand theft, and in the plea deal the State abandoned that charge without securing G.C.’s agreement to pay restitution for the victim’s loss occasioned by the theft of the Gator cart. See § 775.089(l)(b)(2) (“A plea agreement may contain provisions that order restitution relating to criminal offenses committed by the defendant to which the defendant did not specifically enter a plea.”).
Therefore, to obtain a restitution award for the loss of the vehicle, the State had to show that the loss would not have occurred but for the trespass. See, e.g., Socorro v. State, 901 So. 2d 940, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“[I]f ‘but for’ the criminal episode, damages would not have been incurred by the victim, restitution is proper.”); Davis v. State, 741 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (reversing restitution for stolen items when defendant pleaded to attempted burglary, not theft, and there was no significant relationship between offense and victim’s loss). Because the State failed to prove the causation or nexus between G.C.’s trespass and the victim’s loss, we reverse the restitution order. In all other respects, we affirm the adjudication of delinquency and order of probation.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
FULMER, C.J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.J.N. v. State, 977 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…e battery offenses for which he was adjudicated and the damage to the truck. He contends that there was no evidence that he caused the damage while committing the batteries. In support of his position, T.J.N. relies on our decision in G.C. v. State, 944 So. 2d 1099, 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), which reversed a restitution award because the “State failed to prove a nexus” between the juvenile’s offenses and the victim’s loss. For the reasons we will explain, we conclude that the reasoning of G.C. does not apply to…
-
K.N. v. State, 61 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…, 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (reversing restitution for stolen items when the defendant pled to attempted burglary, not theft). Because it failed to do so K.N. should not have been ordered to pay for these losses. As our sister court in G.C. v. State, 944 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), has confirmed, pleading guilty to a trespass, without admitting to a charged theft or agreeing to pay restitution for that theft, will not support restitution for items stolen absent proof of causation or nexus between the trespa…
-
Jovan Cummings v. State, 39 So. 3d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…est restitution). Consequently, the State was required to show that the loss of the vehicle was caused directly or indirectly by Mr. Cummings’ offense and that such loss was related to his criminal episode. This case is on point with G.C. v. State, 944 So. 2d 1099, 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), where G.C. was charged with grand theft of a motor vehicle, burglary of a conveyance, and trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance. It was alleged that he trespassed onto a business’s property and took an a…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schuette v. State, 822 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2002)
- Davis v. State, 741 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Brooks v. State, 901 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)