A.L.M. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

A.L.M. v. State

115 So. 3d 1060, 2013 WL 2493970, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9315

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 12, 2013

DocketNo. 4D12-122

StatusPublished

This text of 115 So. 3d 1060 (A.L.M. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A.L.M. v. State, 115 So. 3d 1060, 2013 WL 2493970, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9315 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

GERBER, J.

The juvenile appeals from a disposition in which the circuit court, among other things: (1) found her guilty of grand theft as to a recovered laptop computer, but not as to unrecovered items including a camera and jewelry; and (2) ordered restitution of $220.00, which the probable cause affidavit alleged the victim would have to pay to recover the camera and jewelry from a pawnshop. The juvenile argues that because the circuit court acquitted her of the theft of the camera and jewelry, the court fundamentally erred in ordering her to pay restitution for those items. We agree with that argument. See Acosta v. State, 856 So.2d 1143, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“[A] court cannot order the defendant to pay restitution for damages arising out of a crime for which [the defendant] was acquitted.”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); Davis v. State, 741 So.2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“[T]he error here was fundamental because to require appellant to pay restitution here would amount to imposing a punishment for an offense that appellant did not commit.”).

Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand for the sole purpose of directing the circuit court to vacate that portion of the disposition which orders the juvenile to pay $220.00 in restitution.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

MAY, C.J., and LEVINE, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GERBER, J.

The juvenile appeals from a disposition in which the circuit court, among other things: (1) found her guilty of grand theft as to a recovered laptop computer, but not as to unrecovered items including a camera and jewelry; and (2) ordered restitution of $220.00, which the probable cause affidavit alleged the victim would have to pay to recover the camera and jewelry from a pawnshop. The juvenile argues that because the circuit court acquitted her of the theft of the camera and jewelry, the court fundamentally erred in ordering her to pay restitution for those items. We agree with that argument. See Acosta v. State, 856 So.2d 1143, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“[A] court cannot order the defendant to pay restitution for damages arising out of a crime for which [the defendant] was acquitted.”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); Davis v. State, 741 So.2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“[T]he error here was fundamental because to require appellant to pay restitution here would amount to imposing a punishment for an offense that appellant did not commit.”).

Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand for the sole purpose of directing the circuit court to vacate that portion of the disposition which orders the juvenile to pay $220.00 in restitution.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

MAY, C.J., and LEVINE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 So. 3d 1060, 2013 WL 2493970, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alm-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack