Bowen v. State

646 So. 2d 305, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12458, 1994 WL 708210
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 22, 1994
DocketNo. 94-576
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 646 So. 2d 305 (Bowen 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
Bowen v. State, 646 So. 2d 305, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12458, 1994 WL 708210 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment and sentence are affirmed. The restitution order is vacated. The record clearly reflects, and the state concedes, that the stolen items on which the restitution was based had been taken in a 1990 burglary by appellant, not the 1992 break-in of which appellant was convicted. The fact that the fingerprints obtained in the 1992 ease showed appellant also committed the 1990 burglary will not support the restitution. Restitution must be for loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense. § 775.089(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1991).

JUDGMENT and SENTENCE AFFIRMED, RESTITUTION VACATED.

HARRIS, C.J., and W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

McMonagle v. State
696 So. 2d 830 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
646 So. 2d 305, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12458, 1994 WL 708210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowen-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.