STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
JUSTIN SCOTT SHIELDS, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 appealed a restitution order in a case where the defendant pleaded guilty to reckless driving and leaving the scene of an accident that injured his motorcycle passenger. The court had awarded only $14,191.28 in restitution despite evidence of over $91,000 in victim expenses, and the appellate court reversed, finding the award inadequate and unsupported by the evidence.
The court reversed the restitution order, finding it inadequate and not supported by the preponderance of the evidence. While the defendant is not responsible for losses caused by post-injury pregnancy, the awarded amount was insufficient. The defendant's ability to pay is a factor for consideration at enforcement, not at imposition of restitution.
[1] A restitution order is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] A defendant should not be held responsible for monetary losses, such as lost income, caused by a victim's post-injury pregnancy.
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“the State is correct that the amount of restitution awarded is inadequate and not supported by the preponderance of the evidence.”
Establishes the core holding that the trial court's restitution award was legally insufficient
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJustin Scott Shields recklessly operated a motorcycle on May 30, 2008, causing his passenger to fall and sustain serious injuries. The victim incurred…
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 Leaving The Scene Of An Accident cases and more on FLexlaw
The issues presented in this appeal resulted from Appellee/Cross-Appellant Justin Scott Shields’ reckless operation of a motorcycle, which caused his passenger to fall from the motorcycle and sustain serious injuries upon impact with the ground. Mr. Shields entered guilty pleas to the crimes of reckless driving and leaving the scene of an accident. As part of sentencing, the State sought restitution on behalf of the victim for her past and future medical expenses and loss of past and future income. The State now appeals the circuit court’s restitution order, asserting two claims of error: that the restitution amount is insufficient and not based on the evidence adduced at the restitution hearing. Mr. Shields cross-appeals, claiming error in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. We review the order of restitution for abuse of discretion, see State v. Hawthorne, 573 So.2d 330 (Fla.1991), and reverse for the reasons discussed below. We affirm the cross-appeal without further discussion.
FACTS
The victim was injured on May 30, 2008. At a change of plea hearing in September 2008, the State mentioned that the victim had already incurred over $7000 in medical expenses and approximately $4000 in lost wages, with more expenses to come because she had not yet completed treatment or been released to return to work. At another restitution hearing in January 2009, the State produced evidence that her rehabilitation was further compromised by the fact that she had become pregnant, the child being due in May 2009, thus delaying surgery and recovery until at least February 2010. At the close of the January 2009 hearing, the circuit court asked for written argument from each party based on the evidence presented. In its written submission, the State sought $91,228.78 in restitution.1 Mr. Shields countered with a suggested restitution amount of either $13,991.28 or $24,510. The lower figure contemplated that Mr. Shields would still be responsible for supervision and court costs; the higher amount contemplated that costs of supervision would be waived. In its final order, the court required Mr. Shields to pay $14,191.28 at $120 per month, which was merely the amount of current medical expenses.
DISCUSSION
We conclude that each party has presented valid legal arguments. Initially, we agree with Mr. Shields that any increase in the victim’s monetary losses, most notably loss of income, caused by her post-injury pregnancy should not be borne by him. However, the State is correct that the amount of restitution awarded is inadequate and not supported by the preponderance of the evidence. See § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (2008); Hector v. State, 784 So.2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Further, Mr. Shields’ ability to pay the amounts ordered is a factor to be considered at the time of enforcement, not at imposition. See Hector, 784 So.2d at 1208 (citing § 775.089(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (2000), and Pickett v. State, 678 So.2d 857, 858 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)).
We reverse the order on the main appeal and remand for reconsideration of the amount of restitution. Because of the pas*283sage of time, the victim’s recoverable expenses may be more accurately determined; thus, it may be advisable for the court to take further evidence on the issue. We affirm the cross-appeal.
KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2011)…the victim’s loss in imposing restitution. Thus, since 1995, the trial court has been required to consider the defendant’s financial resources when a restitution order is being enforced — not when restitution is being imposed. See State v. Shields, 31 So. 3d 281, 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“[AJbility to pay the amounts ordered is a factor to be considered at the time of enforcement, not at imposition.”); Owens v. State, 679 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“[A] defendant’s ability to pay is to be considered…1 / 2
-
J.L.C. v. State, 189 So. 3d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…the amount of $4400, of which $3500 was attributed to the coins. We review a circuit court’s determination of property value within a restitution order for abuse of discretion. Danzey v. State, 186 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); State v. Shields, 31 So. 3d 281, 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). The State bears the burden of proving the amount awarded in restitution by a preponderance of the evidence. S.M. v. State, 159 So. 3d 966, 968 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). That evidence must be competent and substantial. Danzey, 186…
-
State v. Dixon, 308 So. 3d 1121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…rd for abuse of discretion. The award must be supported by competent, substantial evidence, and the State must prove the amount by the greater weight of the evidence. See Danzey v. State, 186 So. 3d 1064, 1065 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); State v. Shields, 31 So. 3d 281, 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). "Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence." § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (2019). "[D]ue process requires a formal hearing on the amount of r…
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
- State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1991)
- Esmie Hector & Diana McPherson v. State, 784 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Pickett v. State, 678 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)