Johnson v. State, 88-1791

Decision Date08 August 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88-1791,88-1791
Parties14 Fla. L. Weekly 1875 Lynn Latrenda JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Marti Rothenberg, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before NESBITT, BASKIN and COPE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals her conviction as an accessory after the fact and also appeals a post-conviction order for restitution in the amount of $89,731.44. Assuming arguendo defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was properly preserved for appellate review, we conclude the evidence was sufficient and affirm the conviction. As it is undisputed that the restitution orders were entered without an opportunity for defendant to be heard, the restitution order is vacated and remanded for a hearing pursuant to the provisions of section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1987). See Howren v. State, 510 So.2d 1142, 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

For purposes of the remand we would note that restitution may be ordered "for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense." § 775.089(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1987); State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla.1988). Defendant may not be ordered to pay restitution for damages arising out of crimes for which she was acquitted. Simmons v. State, 484 So.2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); see also Seiler v. State, 534 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Bass v. State, 462 So.2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

Defendant can, of course, be ordered to make restitution for injury she inflicted directly on the victim during her actions as accessory after the fact. Defendant contends there were no such injuries, but that contention should be presented to the trial court on remand.

Defendant also contends that her acquittal on the charges of attempted murder and robbery precludes assessment of restitution against her for her codefendant's actions in shooting the victim. We agree with respect to the initial injury. However, the defendant drove the codefendant away from the scene of the shooting, for which she was convicted as accessory after the fact. In so doing, the defendant left the seriously wounded victim to fend for himself. He survived, but with permanent injuries.

The statute does permit the assessment of restitution for damages caused indirectly, as well as directly, by defendant's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Reynolds v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 5 Mayo 1992
    ...The trial court agreed to provide a restitution hearing, as timely requested by defense counsel, but none was held. In Johnson v. State, 547 So.2d 300 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989), the appellate court vacated the restitution orders and remanded for a hearing because, like here, it was undisputed tha......
  • Carter v. State, 92-4159
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 11 Agosto 1994
    ...4th DCA 1994); Burke v. State, 596 So.2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Barkley v. State, 585 So.2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Johnson v. State, 547 So.2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Simmons v. State, 484 So.2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Bass v. State, 462 So.2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). But see Durand v.......
  • Carter v. State, 93-1849
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 11 Agosto 1994
    ...4th DCA 1994); Burke v. State, 596 So.2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Barkley v. State, 585 So.2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Johnson v. State, 547 So.2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Simmons v. State, 484 So.2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Bass v. State, 462 So.2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). But see Durand v.......
  • Harris v. State, 91-646
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 13 Febrero 1992
    ...the defendant's ability to pay and to require the state to prove the amount of the victim's medical bills. See also Johnson v. State, 547 So.2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (Since it was undisputed that restitution orders were entered without an opportunity for the defendant to be heard, the cour......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT