Bowen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bowen v. State

646 So. 2d 305, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12458, 1994 WL 708210

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 22, 1994·No. No. 94-576·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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.

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

Pincite

646 So. 2d 305 (Bowen v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related