JSH v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
JSH v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
65 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Schuette v. State (fla, 2002-06-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Schuette v. State (4×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. · 2002 · confidence medium
The Court first addressed the requirements for restitution in criminal cases in J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737, 737 (Fla.1985), where the trial court ordered a juvenile defendant to pay restitution for the damage he caused while attempting to steal radio equipment from a boat. [4] The Court explained that the damage for which the trial court orders restitution need not be directly encompassed within the legal elements of an offense, but it must " bear a significant relationship to the convicted offense." Id. at 738 (emphasis supplied).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hurst
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
A trial court may properly assess restitution for uncharged losses resulting from a charged theft where the uncharged losses “resulted directly from [defendant’s] actions which were necessary to perpetrate his crime.” J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737, 738 (Fla.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) JK v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
J.M. v. State, 661 So.2d 1285, 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737, 738 (Fla.1985); § 39.054(1)(f), Fla. Stat.(1995).
cited Cited as authority (rule) J.K. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
J.M. v. State, 661 So.2d 1285, 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737, 738 (Fla.1985); § 39.054(1)(f), Fla. Stat.(1995).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) JOS v. State
Fla. · 1997 · confidence medium
We construed the language in section 39.11(1)(g) to mean that the offense charged did not have to describe the damage done to support an order of restitution, but rather only required "that the damage bear a significant relationship to the convicted offense." Id. at 738 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) J.O.S. v. State
Fla. · 1997 · confidence medium
We construed the language in section 39.11(l)(g) to mean that the offense charged did not have to describe the damage done to support an order of restitution, but rather only required “that the damage bear a significant relationship to the convicted offense.” Id. at 738 (emphasis added).
cited Cited as authority (rule) J.B. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
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).
cited Cited as authority (rule) JB v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
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).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) D.M. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
In all other respects, however, we reject the respondent’s attack on the restitution provision. (1) The trial court properly ordered the juvenile to make restitution for, inter alia, the cost of the infant seat and stroller which was stolen from the victim’s automobile at the time the automobile was stolen; contrary to the juvenile’s argument, such damage bore “a significant relationship to the convicted offense,” J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737, 738 (Fla.1985), and was therefore properly included within the restitution ordered under Section 39.11(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1987). (2) A…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DM v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
In all other respects, however, we reject the respondent's attack on the restitution provision. (1) The trial court properly ordered the juvenile to make restitution for, inter alia, the cost of the infant seat and stroller which was stolen from the victim's automobile at the time the automobile was stolen; contrary to the juvenile's argument, such damage bore "a significant relationship to the convicted offense," J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737, 738 (Fla. 1985), and was therefore properly included within the restitution ordered under Section 39.11(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1987). (2) Although t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
It is not necessary that the offense charged describe the damage done in order to support a restitution order but only that the damage bear a significant relationship to the convicted offense. 472 So.2d at 738 (Emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lawson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
The charge of theft that the State nolle prossed and the burglary charge that appellant pled guilty to involved the same victim during the same incident in her home, therefore we find that the $150.00 damages bear a "significant relationship" to the convicted offense. *544 J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737, 738 (Fla. 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
The supreme court approved the Second District's decision, stating that "[i]t is not necessary that the offense charged describe the damage done in order to support a restitution order but only that the damage bear a significant relationship to the convicted offense." J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737, 738 (Fla. 1985) (emphasis supplied).
cited Cited "see" A.B. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737 (Fla.1985) and A.G. v. State, 718 So.2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
cited Cited "see" J.R. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737 , 738 (Fla.1985).
cited Cited "see" LH v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737 , 738 (Fla.1985).
cited Cited "see" L.H. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737 , 738 (Fla.1985).
discussed Cited "see" Watson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See *837 J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737, 738 (Fla.1985) (finding that damage to boat bottom was necessary for defendant to perpetrate charged crime of engine-part theft and was thus proper item for restitution).
cited Cited "see" Weisman v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737, 738 (Fla.1985).
cited Cited "see" JM v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737 (Fla. 1985); Denson v. State, 556 So.2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" J.M. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737 (Fla.1985); Denson v. State, 556 So.2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" Denson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737 (Fla. 1985); Jones v. State, 480 So.2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
cited Cited "see" A.R. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737, 738 (Fla.1985).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Faulkner v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737 (Fla. 1985); Fresneda v. State, 347 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 1977); Roberts v. State, 467 So.2d 439 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Cliburn v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737 (Fla. 1985); Fresneda v. State, 347 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 1977); Roberts v. State, 467 So.2d 439 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
J.S.H., a Child, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
66029.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jul 3, 1985.
472 So. 2d 737
Alderman.
Published

Jerry Hill, Public Defender and Douglas S. Connor, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for petitioner.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.

ALDERMAN, Justice.

We review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in J.S.H. v. State, 455 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), which the district court certified to be in direct conflict with W.N. v. State, 426 So.2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The district court held that this juvenile's offense bore a sufficiently significant relationship to the victim's damages to support the trial court's order that the juvenile pay restitution to the victim under section 39.11(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1983). We agree and approve the decision of the district court.

The victim anchored his twenty-one-foot motorboat to a bridge because it was running low on gas and a storm was approaching. Upon returning the next day, he found a person inside the boat cutting wires and loosening screws, and there was a large hole in the boat's bottom. A repair shop estimated that it would cost $1,500 to fully restore the boat. Several items of property (i.e., cooler, fire extinguisher, compass, toolbox) had also been stolen from the boat; however, with the exception of an ammeter worth $50, all of the property was eventually recovered.

The state filed a petition for delinquency, charging petitioner with second-degree grand theft under section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1983). The trial court withheld[*738] adjudication and placed him in a community control program. Subsequently, the trial court held a hearing on the issue of restitution under section 39.11(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1983). The court determined the victim's total damages to be $1,500 for repairing the boat and $50 for replacing the ammeter. Petitioner was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of one-half of $1,550.

On appeal, petitioner argued that restitution was proper only for the ammeter but not for damages to the boat itself because he had been charged only with the crime of grand theft and not with the crime of criminal mischief. Petitioner asserted that the damage to the victim's boat was not "caused by his offense" as section 39.11(1)(g) requires. The district court disagreed, finding that the words "caused by his offense" do not mean that the offense charged must bear a direct relationship to the damages caused but rather that the damages bear a significant relationship to the crime charged. The court, however, certified direct conflict with W.N. v. State. In W.N., juveniles trespassed on school property and allegedly broke several thousand dollars worth of windows. They were originally charged with both criminal mischief and trespass. The criminal mischief charges were, however, nolle prossed. The court, nonetheless, ordered restitution to be paid for the broken windows. The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reversed the restitution order and stated there was no relationship between the offense charged (trespass) and the damages. The court reasoned that only the criminal mischief charge had a direct relationship to the damages, and, because it was nolle prossed, there was no legal foundation to impose restitution.

Petitioner contends, as he did in the district court, that the damages to the boat were not caused by his offense of grand theft. We disagree.

The damages were the result of the theft as they resulted directly from petitioner's actions which were necessary to perpetrate his crime. The hole in the boat's bottom resulted from a seat being removed from the boat, and all the wires were cut in order to facilitate the theft of engine parts. These actions were undertaken so that items could be stolen and were necessary for the theft to occur. Without these acts of destruction, some items simply could not have been stolen. It is not necessary that the offense charged describe the damage done in order to support a restitution order but only that the damage bear a significant relationship to the convicted offense.

Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.

SHAW, J., concurs in result only.