Law v. State, 705 So. 2d 632 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Cases | Law v. State, 705 So. 2d 632 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) | 2018

The defendant pled nolo contendere to burglary of a dwelling and petit theft and was sentenced to two years in prison, five years of probation, dependency rehabilitation, and restitution. On appeal, the defendant made several arguments, including that “the restitution order must be stricken because the police have already returned the stolen items to the victims and therefore the victims are not entitled to receive restitution” and that the court did not have authority to enter an order of restitution beyond sixty days after the sentencing order was entered. The court of appeals held that the record does not show that the victims have recovered the entire amount that they lost, as a direct or indirect result of the crime, simply by having their stolen items returned to them. Furthermore, the court held that the order of restitution was entered within sixty days of sentencing and the court did have authority to determine the amount of restitution at a later date. The order of restitution was affirmed.