Johnston v. State, 870 So. 2d 877 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Cases | Johnston v. State, 870 So. 2d 877 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) | 2018

The defendant pled nolo contendere to dealing in stolen property and the state nolle prossed several other offenses. On appeal, the defendant argued that “the trial court erred by ordering restitution for all losses resulting from the burglary of the victim’s home.” The court of appeals originally upheld the order, but on this motion for rehearing, the court withdrew its opinion of December 31, 2003, and replaced it with this one, holding “that restitution for the items stolen during the burglary is proper, because the loss bears a significant relationship to the dealing in stolen property.” However, the court of appeals further held that the cost to repair and to clean the victim’s home should not be included in the restitution order. The order of restitution was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and was remanded for clarification.