Jones v. State, BE-223

• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: SHIVERS
• Citation: Jones v. State, 480 So.2d 163, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2776 (Fla. App. 1985)
• Decision Date: 17 December 1985
• Docket Number: No. BE-223,BE-223
• Parties: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2776 Ronald JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Page 163

480 So.2d 163

10 Fla. L. Weekly 2776

Ronald JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. BE-223.

District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.

Dec. 17, 1985.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Henri C. Cawthon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

SHIVERS, Judge.

Appellant, defendant below, appeals a portion of an order of restitution imposed as a condition of his probation. We find that the court was correct in ordering restitution, but remand for a correction of the amount.

The appellant, Ronald Jones, was alleged to have been involved in the burglary of several homes in Gadsden County and the subsequent sale of property stolen from those homes to undercover police officers in Tallahassee. He was then charged as follows: three separate Leon County informations, each charging him with one count of dealing in stolen property and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and three separate Gadsden County informations, each charging him with one count of burglary of a dwelling and one count of grand theft.

On October 25, 1984, appellant appeared in court in Leon County to enter pleas in the above six cases. As to each of the three Gadsden County cases, he withdrew previously-entered pleas of not guilty and substituted pleas of no contest to the burglary counts with the understanding that the grand theft counts would be nolle prossed. As to the three Leon County cases, he again withdrew pleas of not guilty and entered pleas of no contest to the dealing in stolen property charges with the understanding that the possession of firearm charges would be nolle prossed. All of the pleas were entered with the understanding that the appellant would receive a total sentence of seven years and that three other pending Gadsden County cases would also be nolle prossed. The end result of the plea entries was that, with regard to burglary victims Mr. & Mrs. Daws, the charge of burglary of their home was nolle prossed whereas appellant pled guilty to dealing in stolen property belonging to them.

Appellant was ultimately sentenced to seven years imprisonment to be followed by seven years probation. As one of the conditions of his probation he was ordered to pay restitution to the Dawses in the amount of $328 and to their insurance carrier, Hartford Insurance Company, in the amount of $512.

Section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1983) provides that a court may order a defendant to make restitution to the aggrieved party "for damages or loss caused by the defendant's offense." (emphasis supplied) Appellant argues on appeal, as he did before the trial court, that he should not be required to pay restitution to the Dawses and their insurer, as their loss resulted from a crime for which he was not convicted--i.e., the burglary of their home. Appellant argues that the Dawses' loss was caused by the burglary, not by his actions in dealing in stolen property.

We disagree. In J.S.H. v. State, 455 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), a juvenile partially dismantled the victim's motorboat and removed several items of property....