I.K.P., A CHILD
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.
Restitution for a victim's loss is improper when the state fails to prove a causal connection between the defendant's criminal episode and the loss.
[1] Restitution may not be awarded for damages unless the state proves a causal connection between the defendant's criminal episode and the victim's loss.
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“When the state fails to prove that a defendant's criminal episode has a causal connection to the victim's loss, restitution for that loss is improper.”
Court stating the legal standard for restitution orders
I.K.P., a child, was convicted and the trial court entered an order of restitution for towing and re-keying a car related to a burglary of a conveyanc…
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.
PER CURIAM.
I.K.P., a child, appeals an order of restitution and an order committing her to a high risk, secure residential program. She argues that the trial court erred in entering the restitution order because the state failed to prove the causal connection between the damages awarded and the criminal act charged. The state properly concedes error with respect to this point, and we reverse. “When the state fails to prove that a defendant’s criminal episode has a causal connection to the victim’s loss, restitution for that loss is improper.” E.J.A. v. State, 301 So. 3d 290, 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). As we explained in our reversal of the restitution order imposed against I.K.P.’s codefendant, the state failed to establish a causal connection between the offense of burglary of a conveyance and damages for towing and re-keying the car. See id. at 291-92. Accordingly, “we accept the state’s confession of error, affirm the disposition, and reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate its restitution order.” See id. at 293.
2
We find no error with respect to the order of commitment, which we affirm. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
I.K.P. v. State, 301 So. 3d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…The state properly concedes error with respect to this point, and we reverse. “When the state fails to prove that a defendant’s criminal episode has a causal connection to the victim’s loss, restitution for that loss is improper.” E.J.A. v. State, 301 So. 3d 290, 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). As we explained in our reversal of the restitution order imposed against I.K.P.’s codefendant, the state failed to establish a causal connection between the offense of burglary of a conveyance and damages for towing and re…
-
I.K.P. v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…The state properly concedes error with respect to this point, and we reverse. “When the state fails to prove that a defendant’s criminal episode has a causal connection to the victim’s loss, restitution for that loss is improper.” E.J.A. v. State, 301 So. 3d 290, 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). As we explained in our reversal of the restitution order imposed against I.K.P.’s codefendant, the state failed to establish a causal connection between the offense of burglary of a conveyance and damages for towing and re…
Authorities Cited
- I.K.P. v. State, 301 So. 3d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)