From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bowen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Dec 22, 1994
646 So. 2d 305 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Opinion

No. 94-576.

December 22, 1994.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County; Michael F. Cycmanick, Judge.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Daniel J. Schafer, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Barbara Arlene Fink, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.


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 case 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(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991).

JUDGMENT and SENTENCE AFFIRMED, RESTITUTION VACATED.

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


Summaries of

Bowen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Dec 22, 1994
646 So. 2d 305 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
Case details for

Bowen v. State

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL BOWEN, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Dec 22, 1994

Citations

646 So. 2d 305 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Citing Cases

McMonagle v. State

Restitution is properly awarded for damages related to the crime for which a defendant is being sentenced.…