ALLEN CHRISTOPHER JONES
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court, not a jury, determines the amount of restitution under Florida Statutes section 775.089(7), which requires disputes over restitution to be resolved by the court using a preponderance of the evidence standard.
[1] Restitution amounts in criminal cases are determined by the trial court, not a jury, and disputes over the proper amount or type of restitution are resolved by the court…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[a]ny dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence.”
Section 775.089(7)(c), Florida Statutes (2024), establishing the standard for restitution determination
Allen Christopher Jones appealed a restitution determination made by the trial court in Martin County. Jones argued that a jury must decide the restit…
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 Significant Relationship Test cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
ALLEN CHRISTOPHER JONES, Appellant,
V.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
No. 4D2025-1747
[May 6, 2026]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; William Loy Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 432024001297CFAXMX.
Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph Mollica, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges, in one issue, the trial court's determination of restitution, claiming that a jury must decide the restitution amount. That argument lacks merit. See, e.g., State v. Tomasheski, 168 So. 3d 248, 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (citing J.O.S. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1061, 1064 (Fla. 1997) ("[Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes] ‘creates the significant relationship test."). Further, section 775.089(7) states that “[a]ny 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)(c), Fla. Stat. (2024) (emphasis added).
All other issues are affirmed without discussion.
Affirmed.
LEVINE, FORST and SHEPHERD, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- J.O.S. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1997)
- State v. Tomasheski, 168 So. 3d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)