Opinion
Case No. 1D03-2046.
Opinion filed December 31, 2003.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. T. Michael Jones, Judge.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Thomas D. Winokur, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
The appellant, Michael Johnston, appeals his conviction and sentence for three counts of dealing in stolen property. The appellant contends that the trial court erred by ordering restitution for all losses resulting from the burglary of the victim's home. We affirm the trial court's order of restitution with respect to the items stolen from the victim's home, but reverse with respect to the damages to the victim's home.
The amount of restitution ordered by a trial court is subject to review for an abuse of discretion. Ashton v. State, 790 So.2d 1115, 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). A trial court must order a defendant to make restitution for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense, and damage or loss related to the defendant's criminal episode. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994). However, the general rule is restitution may not be ordered for any loss which resulted from an unrelated offense for which the defendant was not charged or convicted.Watson v. State, 699 So.2d 835, 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Smith v. State, 664 So.2d 1047, 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Faulkner v. State, 582 So.2d 783, 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Denson v. State, 556 So.2d 823, 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Nonetheless, the general rule does not apply where there is a significant relationship between the loss for which restitution is ordered and the offense committed by the defendant. See Denson, 556 So.2d at 824; Jones v. State, 480 So.2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Ms. Janis Milin's home was burglarized and she subsequently found several of the stolen items at local businesses. Three proprietors, who knew the appellant from previous transactions, identified the appellant as the seller of the items stolen from Ms. Milin. The appellant was charged with burglarizing the home of Ms. Milin, three counts of dealing in stolen property belonging to Ms. Milin, grand theft, and criminal mischief. Thereafter, he negotiated a plea agreement whereby he pled nolo contendere to the dealing in stolen property offenses and the remaining offenses were nolle prossed. The appellant was ordered to make restitution for all losses resulting from the burglary.
We conclude that restitution for the items stolen during the burglary is proper because the items stolen bear a significant relationship to the dealing in stolen property offenses. See Jones, 480 So.2d at 164. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the appellant to pay restitution for all of the items stolen during the burglary.
However, the cost to repair Ms. Milin's home does not bear a significant relationship to the dealing in stolen property offenses. Id. The restitution ordered by the trial court included $1,150 for the cost of repairing and cleaning Ms. Milin's home. Thus, the trial court's order is reversed with regard to the cost of repairing and cleaning Ms. Milin's home.See id.
AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART.
ERVIN, DAVIS and BROWNING, JJ., Concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.