Catoe v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Catoe v. State

618 So. 2d 784, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5547, 1993 WL 167707

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 21, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1573

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 618 So. 2d 784 (Catoe 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

Catoe v. State, 618 So. 2d 784, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5547, 1993 WL 167707 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinions

COBB, Judge.

On appeal, the defendant argues that he should not have been required to pay restitution to the victim’s family. We agree.

Section 775.089(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1991) states:

(c) The term “victim” as used in this section and in any provision of law relating to restitution includes the aggrieved party, the aggrieved party’s estate if the aggrieved party is deceased, and the aggrieved party’s next of kin if the aggrieved party is deceased as a result of the offense.

The families of Catoe’s rape victims, none of whom are deceased, are not encompassed within the statutory language of section 775.089(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1991). Therefore, we reverse the restitution order of the trial court to the extent it relates to the family members. See Ocasio v. State, 586 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Eloshway v. State, 553 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 564 So.2d 486 (Fla.1990).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

W. SHARP, J., concurs. DAUKSCH, J., dissents with opinion.

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