Eylward v. State
Decision Date | 05 February 2020 |
Docket Number | Case No. 2D18-2169 |
Citation | 289 So.3d 989 |
Parties | Lorraine Jean EYLWARD, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Siobhan Helene Shea, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Lorraine Jean Eylward was tried by a jury and found guilty of one count of exploitation of an elderly person, a violation of section 825.103(1), Florida Statutes (2012). We find no merit in her arguments on appeal and affirm her conviction accordingly.
The State has filed a cross-appeal, arguing that the trial court erred when it declined to require Ms. Eylward to pay any amount of restitution. The State points out that the jury had made a specific finding that Ms. Eylward had misappropriated more than $20,000 but less than $100,000 of the victim's funds. At sentencing, the State urged the court to impose restitution in the amount of $85,483; Ms. Eylward's counsel argued that an appropriate restitution amount would be less than half of that.
The trial court, however, ruled:
In our view, the court misperceived its role in determining restitution.
We review a trial court's determination of a restitution amount for abuse of discretion. See State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330, 333 (Fla. 1991) (); M.P. v. State, 256 So. 3d 231, 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (). That review necessarily revolves around the statute that governs restitution in criminal proceedings, section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2012), which provides:
(Emphasis added.) Under this statute, a trial court must impose restitution (unless it states on the record clear and compelling reasons not to) and it is required to resolve any dispute about the amount of restitution to be paid. See Townsend v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 192 So. 3d 1223, 1229 (Fla. 2016) .
In the case at bar, there was apparently some confusion over the trial court's role and the role of the jury's findings when resolving disputed restitution. That issue has been addressed by the Florida Supreme Court and the district courts of appeal. In J.O.S. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1061, 1062 (Fla. 1997), the supreme court answered the certified question whether, in the absence of a plea agreement, restitution could be ordered in an amount greater than the maximum dollar value defining the offense for which a defendant is adjudicated guilty. Answering that question in the affirmative, the J.O.S. court explained that the broadened statutory language that restitution for damage or loss must be "caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense" and "related to the defendant's criminal episode," means that a restitution award under section 775.089(1)(a) need only bear a "significant relationship" to the convicted offense, so that a court can order restitution in an amount greater than the maximum dollar value defining the offense for which the defendant was adjudicated guilty. Id. at 1064-65. Florida's district courts of appeal have steadfastly applied the directions of section...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Derrick v. State
...amount greater than the maximum dollar amount associated with the offense for which the defendant was convicted. Eylward v. State , 289 So. 3d 989, 991–92 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) ; see also J.O.S. v. State , 689 So. 2d 1061, 1064–65 (Fla. 1997). If, after a new trial, Derrick is convicted of cri......
-
Judgment and sentence
...in an amount greater than the maximum dollar value defining the offense for which the defendant was adjudicated guilty. Eylward v. State, 289 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) A defendant is put on notice for purposes of restitution for a particular item even if that item is not referenced in t......