M.B. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.B. v. State

30 So. 3d 658, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 3345

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 17, 2010

DocketNo. 3D09-1483

StatusPublished

This text of 30 So. 3d 658 (M.B. 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

M.B. v. State, 30 So. 3d 658, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 3345 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SALTER, J.

M.B., a juvenile, appeals an order imposing restitution following a withheld adjudication for delinquency. We reverse in part because some of the items in the restitution order were not properly included.

The victim testified that the lock was broken and she had already bought a repair kit when the crime was committed. The broken lock cannot then be causally connected or significantly related to the defendant’s offense. § 985.437(2), Fla. Stat. (2009) (authorizing court to order juvenile to pay restitution for “damage or loss caused by the child’s offense.”); Schuette v. State, 822 So.2d 1275 (Fla.2002). Also, as the state properly concedes, there is no evidence that the juvenile stole the missing real estate sign. The juvenile was apprehended inside the house and the sign was not mentioned on the arrest form, or the petition for delinquency.

We therefore reverse the portion of the restitution order imposing $1,548.16 in restitution and remand for the trial court to deduct from that award the $50.00 for the lock repair and the $148.16 for the signs. The new restitution order shall be in the amount of $1,350.00.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

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

SALTER, J.

M.B., a juvenile, appeals an order imposing restitution following a withheld adjudication for delinquency. We reverse in part because some of the items in the restitution order were not properly included.

The victim testified that the lock was broken and she had already bought a repair kit when the crime was committed. The broken lock cannot then be causally connected or significantly related to the defendant’s offense. § 985.437(2), Fla. Stat. (2009) (authorizing court to order juvenile to pay restitution for “damage or loss caused by the child’s offense.”); Schuette v. State, 822 So.2d 1275 (Fla.2002). Also, as the state properly concedes, there is no evidence that the juvenile stole the missing real estate sign. The juvenile was apprehended inside the house and the sign was not mentioned on the arrest form, or the petition for delinquency.

We therefore reverse the portion of the restitution order imposing $1,548.16 in restitution and remand for the trial court to deduct from that award the $50.00 for the lock repair and the $148.16 for the signs. The new restitution order shall be in the amount of $1,350.00.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 So. 3d 658, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 3345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mb-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack