foundational principle in Florida

2024See Aboyoun v. State, 842 So. 2d 238, 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that the victim's testimony regarding the amount of cash that was taken "was sufficient to support the restitution award"). 2 offense and bears a significant relationship to the offense.' " Ferri v. State, 311 So. 3d 240 , 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (quoting Koile v. State, 934 So. 2d 1226, 1234 (Fla. 2006)); see also James v. State, 223 So. 3d 288, 290-91 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ("[I]t is a foundational rule that 'when a defendant agrees to pay restitution as part of a plea agreement, the defendant's agreement is limited to restitu

2017Consequently, it is a foundational rule that “when a defendant agrees to pay restitution as part of a plea agreement, the defendant’s agreement is limited to restitution arising out of the offense charged by the State as reflected in the information and/or by the factual basis for the plea.” *291 Malarkey v. State, 975 So.2d 538, 540-41 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (emphasis added); accord A.D. v. State, 152 So.3d 798, 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); see also Socorro v. State, 901 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Absent a causal link and significant relationship between the loss for which restitution is or

2025See Varnedore, 210 So. 3d at 745 (quoting Bank of Am.

2024See Aboyoun v. State, 842 So. 2d 238, 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that the victim's testimony regarding the amount of cash that was taken "was sufficient to support the restitution award"). 2 offense and bears a significant relationship to the offense.' " Ferri v. State, 311 So. 3d 240 , 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (quoting Koile v. State, 934 So. 2d 1226, 1234 (Fla. 2006)); see also James v. State, 223 So. 3d 288, 290-91 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ("[I]t is a foundational rule that 'when a defendant agrees to pay restitution as part of a plea agreement, the defendant's agreement is limited to restitu

2024See Aboyoun v. State, 842 So. 2d 238, 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that the victim's testimony regarding the amount of cash that was taken "was sufficient to support the restitution award"). 2 offense and bears a significant relationship to the offense.' " Ferri v. State, 311 So. 3d 240 , 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (quoting Koile v. State, 934 So. 2d 1226, 1234 (Fla. 2006)); see also James v. State, 223 So. 3d 288, 290-91 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ("[I]t is a foundational rule that 'when a defendant agrees to pay restitution as part of a plea agreement, the defendant's agreement is limited to restitu

2024See Aboyoun v. State, 842 So. 2d 238, 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that the victim's testimony regarding the amount of cash that was taken "was sufficient to support the restitution award"). 2 offense and bears a significant relationship to the offense.' " Ferri v. State, 311 So. 3d 240 , 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (quoting Koile v. State, 934 So. 2d 1226, 1234 (Fla. 2006)); see also James v. State, 223 So. 3d 288, 290-91 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ("[I]t is a foundational rule that 'when a defendant agrees to pay restitution as part of a plea agreement, the defendant's agreement is limited to restitu

2021Underlying the Williams rule procedure is the foundational principle that "[d]ue process prohibits an individual from being convicted of an uncharged crime." Morgan v. State, 146 So. 3d 508, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (first citing Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948); then citing Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445, 448 (Fla. 2010); and then citing Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59, 69 (Fla. 2004)). "[A] criminal defendant is entitled to a trial on the charges contained in the information and may not be prosecuted for uncharged offenses, even if they are of the same general character or constitute

2021"But notwithstanding the danger posed by the admission of similar fact evidence, the Florida Supreme Court has for some time adhered to a broad rule of admissibility based on the relevancy of the evidence to a fact to be proved." Snowden v. State, 537 So. 2d 1383, 1384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (citing Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)); see also § 90.404(2), Fla. Stat. (2019).

2021Underlying the Williams rule procedure is the foundational principle that "[d]ue process prohibits an individual from being convicted of an uncharged crime." Morgan v. State, 146 So. 3d 508, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (first citing Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948); then citing Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445, 448 (Fla. 2010); and then citing Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59, 69 (Fla. 2004)). "[A] criminal defendant is entitled to a trial on the charges contained in the information and may not be prosecuted for uncharged offenses, even if they are of the same general character or constitute

2021Underlying the Williams rule procedure is the foundational principle that "[d]ue process prohibits an individual from being convicted of an uncharged crime." Morgan v. State, 146 So. 3d 508, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (first citing Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948); then citing Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445, 448 (Fla. 2010); and then citing Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59, 69 (Fla. 2004)). "[A] criminal defendant is entitled to a trial on the charges contained in the information and may not be prosecuted for uncharged offenses, even if they are of the same general character or constitute

2021Underlying the Williams rule procedure is the foundational principle that "[d]ue process prohibits an individual from being convicted of an uncharged crime." Morgan v. State, 146 So. 3d 508, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (first citing Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948); then citing Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445, 448 (Fla. 2010); and then citing Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59, 69 (Fla. 2004)). "[A] criminal defendant is entitled to a trial on the charges contained in the information and may not be prosecuted for uncharged offenses, even if they are of the same general character or constitute

2021Underlying the Williams rule procedure is the foundational principle that "[d]ue process prohibits an individual from being convicted of an uncharged crime." Morgan v. State, 146 So. 3d 508, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (first citing Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948); then citing Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445, 448 (Fla. 2010); and then citing Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59, 69 (Fla. 2004)). "[A] criminal defendant is entitled to a trial on the charges contained in the information and may not be prosecuted for uncharged offenses, even if they are of the same general character or constitute

2021Underlying the Williams rule procedure is the foundational principle that "[d]ue process prohibits an individual from being convicted of an uncharged crime." Morgan v. State, 146 So. 3d 508, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (first citing Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948); then citing Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445, 448 (Fla. 2010); and then citing Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59, 69 (Fla. 2004)). "[A] criminal defendant is entitled to a trial on the charges contained in the information and may not be prosecuted for uncharged offenses, even if they are of the same general character or constitute

2021Underlying the Williams rule procedure is the foundational principle that "[d]ue process prohibits an individual from being convicted of an uncharged crime." Morgan v. State, 146 So. 3d 508, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (first citing Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948); then citing Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445, 448 (Fla. 2010); and then citing Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59, 69 (Fla. 2004)). "[A] criminal defendant is entitled to a trial on the charges contained in the information and may not be prosecuted for uncharged offenses, even if they are of the same general character or constitute

2021Underlying the Williams rule procedure is the foundational principle that "[d]ue process prohibits an individual from being convicted of an uncharged crime." Morgan v. State, 146 So. 3d 508, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (first citing Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948); then citing Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445, 448 (Fla. 2010); and then citing Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59, 69 (Fla. 2004)). "[A] criminal defendant is entitled to a trial on the charges contained in the information and may not be prosecuted for uncharged offenses, even if they are of the same general character or constitute

2021Underlying the Williams rule procedure is the foundational principle that "[d]ue process prohibits an individual from being convicted of an uncharged crime." Morgan v. State, 146 So. 3d 508, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (first citing Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948); then citing Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445, 448 (Fla. 2010); and then citing Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59, 69 (Fla. 2004)). "[A] criminal defendant is entitled to a trial on the charges contained in the information and may not be prosecuted for uncharged offenses, even if they are of the same general character or constitute

2021Underlying the Williams rule procedure is the foundational principle that "[d]ue process prohibits an individual from being convicted of an uncharged crime." Morgan v. State, 146 So. 3d 508, 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (first citing Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948); then citing Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445, 448 (Fla. 2010); and then citing Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59, 69 (Fla. 2004)). "[A] criminal defendant is entitled to a trial on the charges contained in the information and may not be prosecuted for uncharged offenses, even if they are of the same general character or constitute

2020The Court’s analysis proceeded from the foundational principle that the Fifth Amendment (due process) and the Sixth Amendment (jury trial) combine to “entitle a criminal defendant to a ‘jury determination . . . of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. at 477 (quoting United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995)).

2018See, e.g., Gunsby v. State, 574 So. 2d 1085, 1090 (Fla. 1991) ("The resolution of factual conflicts is solely the responsibility and duty of the trial judge, and, as the appellate court, we have no authority to reweigh that evidence.").

2017Consequently, it is a foundational rule that “when a defendant agrees to pay restitution as part of a plea agreement, the defendant’s agreement is limited to restitution arising out of the offense charged by the State as reflected in the information and/or by the factual basis for the plea.” *291 Malarkey v. State, 975 So.2d 538, 540-41 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (emphasis added); accord A.D. v. State, 152 So.3d 798, 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); see also Socorro v. State, 901 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Absent a causal link and significant relationship between the loss for which restitution is or

2017Consequently, it is a foundational rule that “when a defendant agrees to pay restitution as part of a plea agreement, the defendant’s agreement is limited to restitution arising out of the offense charged by the State as reflected in the information and/or by the factual basis for the plea.” *291 Malarkey v. State, 975 So.2d 538, 540-41 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (emphasis added); accord A.D. v. State, 152 So.3d 798, 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); see also Socorro v. State, 901 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Absent a causal link and significant relationship between the loss for which restitution is or

2003Chadbourn rev., 1970); accord Lindley v. State, 728 So.2d 1153, 1155-56 (Ala.1998); Ringgold v. State, 34 Md.App. 286 , 367 A.2d 35, 36-37 (1976).

2003Chadbourn rev., 1970); accord Lindley v. State, 728 So.2d 1153, 1155-56 (Ala.1998); Ringgold v. State, 34 Md.App. 286 , 367 A.2d 35, 36-37 (1976).

2003Chadbourn rev., 1970); accord Lindley v. State, 728 So.2d 1153, 1155-56 (Ala.1998); Ringgold v. State, 34 Md.App. 286 , 367 A.2d 35, 36-37 (1976).