A.D., A CHILD, 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 held that restitution for items not listed in the charging documents or factual basis for the plea cannot be awarded. However, the court found sufficient evidence for other valuations.
A juvenile pleaded no contest to burglary and grand theft. The trial court ordered restitution, including for a camera not explicitly listed in the ch…
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 Factual Basis For Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
A.D., a juvenile, appeals from a restitution order following the court’s acceptance of his plea of no contest to one count of burglary of a dwelling and one count of grand theft. Appellant first argues that there was not sufficient valuation evidence to support the trial court’s restitution order. We disagree, concluding that the record evidence supports the trial court’s valuations. Next, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in awarding restitution for a camera because it was not specifically listed as an item stolen in the grand theft count contained in Appellant’s petition for delinquency. Appellant is correct.
As we explained in S.S. v. State, 122 So.3d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), “[w]hen a defendant agrees to pay restitution as part of a plea agreement, the defendant’s agreement is limited to restitution arising out of the offense charged by the [sjtate as reflected in the information and/or by the factual basis for the plea.” Id. at 502 (quoting Malarkey v. State, 975 So.2d 538, 540-41 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)). In *799other words, “in order for the court to require restitution, either the arrest affidavit or the facts admitted by the juvenile at the time of the plea must include the items for which the court orders restitution.” Id.
Here, there was no mention of a camera in the arrest affidavit, the petition for delinquency, or at the plea hearing. Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order as it pertains to the camera and remand for the trial court to recalculate the amount of restitution consistent with this opinion.
Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part and Remanded.
STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rachelle Marie James v. State, 223 So. 3d 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…ted to restitution arising out of the offense charged by the State as reflected in the information and/or by the factual basis for the plea.” [*291] Malarkey v. State, 975 So. 2d 538, 540-41 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (emphasis added); accord A.D. v. State, 152 So. 3d 798, 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); see also Socorro v. State, 901 So. 2d 940, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Absent a causal link and significant relationship between the loss for which restitution is ordered and the defendant’s offense, restitution may not be or…
-
Verdejo v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Malarkey v. State, 975 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- KCF Site Dev., LLC v. PNC Bank, 122 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- S.S. v. State, 122 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)