U.B., JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
BARFIELD, J.
In this appeal from an order of restitution following the appellant’s adjudication of delinquency based on charges of burglary and petit theft, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to order $27 as restitution for the loss of stolen beer and gin, included in the charge of petit theft. However, as the state properly concedes, the trial court erred as a matter of law in awarding restitution for the loss of stolen jewelry which was not mentioned in the charging document. No-land v. State, 734 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
The restitution order is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court with instructions to enter a corrected order of restitution which does not include values for the jewelry.
DAVIS and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
G.P. v. State, 996 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…with the theft of “miscellaneous jewelry and/or clothing.” “Restitution cannot be ordered for a theft not encompassed within the charge contained in the information.” Noland v. State, 734 So. 2d 464, 466 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); see also U.B. v. State, 965 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (reversing restitution award that included amount for jewelry not mentioned in the charging document). We reject G.P.’s argument with respect to the purse and the sunglasses.1 We agree, however, that the CDs are neither jewelry n…
Authorities Cited
- Noland v. State, 734 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)