J.B. v. State, 94-811
| Decision Date | 08 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-811,94-811 |
| Citation | 646 So.2d 808 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D2590 J.B., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and William J. Bakstran, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
J.B., a juvenile, was convicted of the criminal offenses of theft of an automobile and theft of a golfcart. He appeals an order requiring him to pay restitution to the owners for damages to the two vehicles suffered as a consequence of the theft, and to pay restitution in the amount of lost wages sustained by the victims for the time they spent in attending the restitution hearing. We reverse for the following reasons.
We agree with J.B. that he was entitled to be present at the restitution hearing unless he validly waived that right (See Rule 8.100, Fla.R.Juv.P.), and that even though he did not show up at the scheduled restitution hearing, the state failed to prove an effective waiver of his right to be present. The trial court's conversation with an "unidentified speaker" (even though it appeared the speaker was J.B.'s mother) was not sworn evidence and did not constitute competent, substantial evidence proving an effective waiver of this right. Further, we note that neither the transcript of the hearing nor the restitution order contains any finding of waiver by the trial court.
We also agree with J.B. that it was error to order restitution for lost wages attributable to the victims' attendance as witnesses at the restitution hearing. "[A] substantial limitation on restitution in juvenile cases is the element of causation." K.M.C. v. State, 485 So.2d 1296, 1297 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 492 So.2d 1335 (Fla.1986). In that respect, it is necessary that "the damage bear a significant relationship to the convicted offense." J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737, 738 (Fla.1985). These maxims, taken in conjunction with the strict construction that must be given the juvenile restitution statute and the lack of any specific reference in the statute to lost wages, lead us to conclude that the award of restitution for lost wages was not authorized by law because these lost wages were not causally related to the commission of the crime but resulted from the witnesses' attendance at the hearing. The state cites no authority for including as costs the wages lost by a witness.
The order of restitution is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings on the matter of restitution consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M.W.G. v. State, 2D06-388.
...e.g., T.A.S. v. State, 892 So.2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Miller v. State, 833 So.2d 318, 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); J.B. v. State, 646 So.2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). However, a defendant can waive this right and exercise constructive presence through counsel. Coney, 653 So.2d at 1013. I......
-
J.S. v. State, 97-2133
...action by victim of dealing in stolen property crime reasonably foreseeable to person who sells stolen property). In J.B. v. State, 646 So.2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the first district confronted an issue identical to that in this case--- whether a juvenile defendant could be required to m......
-
Koile v. State
...determined that the restitution statute also requires the application of the significant relationship test.1 See also J.B. v. State, 646 So.2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (taking into account the juvenile statute does not specifically reference lost wages, the award of restitution for lost wage......
-
E.H.W. v. State
...voluntary nature of the defendant's waiver." Bishop v. State , 143 So. 3d 1073, 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) ; see also J.B. v. State , 646 So. 2d 808, 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (noting that the trial court did not make a finding of waiver and reiterating that unsworn statements do not constitute ......