State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“section 775.089(1)(a) is not ambiguous.”
118 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mark Anthony Tolbert v. State of Florida (fladistctapp, 2019-04-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 38 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Mark Anthony Tolbert v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
section 775.089(1)(a) is not ambiguous.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Malarkey v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Glaubius v. State, 688 So.2d 913, 915 (Fla.1997); State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla.1988).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Schuette v. State (6×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. · 2002 · confidence medium
Id. at 277 (emphasis supplied).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dyer v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla. 1988).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Powell v. State (3×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
Restitution should be determined on the basis of the test formulated in State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla. 1988), and enunciated in O'Steen v. State, 547 So.2d 235, 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989): *225 (1) Was the damage or loss for which restitution is ordered caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense? (2) Is there a significant relationship between the damage to the victim and the crime proved?
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mansingh v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
O'Steen v. State, 547 So.2d 235, 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (citing State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla. 1988)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Small v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
In State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla.1988), the supreme court refused to allow a restitution order which required defendant to pay, as a condition of probation, restitution for injuries sustained in an accident after defendant was convicted of a single count of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in personal injuries.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Stewart v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla. 1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Arling v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
Subsequent to the amendment of the statute reducing the necessary causal connection between the offense and the loss, the supreme court has held that the significant relationship test "should work in conjunction with the causation required by the statute." State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla. 1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
For purposes of the remand we would note that restitution may be ordered "for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense." § 775.089(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1987); State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla. 1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) O'Steen v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla. 1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Starkey
Iowa · 1989 · confidence medium
See, e.g., People v. Corners, 176 Cal.App.3d 139, 148-49 , 221 Cal.Rptr. 387, 393 (1985) (statute requires restitution for “persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity”; causal relationship required); State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla.1988) (statute requires restitution for “damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense”; causal relationship required); State v. Eastman, 51 Or.App. 723, 725-26 , 626 P.2d 956, 958 (1981), aff'd, 292 Or. 184 , 637 P.2d 609 (1981) (“victim" defined as any person who has “suffered pecuniary damages as …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Patten v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
Our supreme court seems to imply what I have concluded when it states in Brumley : "In Shull v. Dugger, 515 So.2d 748 (Fla. 1987), we held that a trial court must articulate all of the reasons for departure in the original order and cannot enunciate any new reasons for departure after reversal of the original sentence by an appellate court." 520 So.2d at 276.
discussed Cited "see" Latham v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams, 520 So.2d at 278 (holding that damage caused by accident was not a direct or indirect result of the offense of leaving the scene of an accident because the damage was not caused by the defendant leaving the scene). 6 *692 The State argues that the , payment of the award by the Fund creates an order of restitution to the Fund.
discussed Cited "see" State of New Hampshire v. Louise E. Pinault
N.H. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276, 277-78 (Fla. 1988); State v. Starkey, 437 N.W.2d 573, 575 (Iowa 1989); State v. Beaudoin, 503 A.2d 1289, 1290 (Me. 1986); State v. Steinolfson, 483 N.W.2d 182, 184 (N.D. 1992); Columbus v. Cardwell, 893 N.E.2d 526, 528-29 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008); Com. v. Cooper, 466 A.2d 195, 196-97 (Pa. Super.
cited Cited "see" Bellot v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See D.N. v. State, 529 So.2d 1217, 1224 (Fla. 1st *861 DCA 1988) (citing State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988)), disapproved of on other grounds by State v. G.C., 572 So.2d 1380 (Fla.1991).
cited Cited "see" Bernard v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla. 1988).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Schuette
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988). [2] Although the state did not provide a transcript, even after Schuette brought its absence to the state's attention, we hold that the record was sufficient for us to resolve this issue. [3] The record before us indicates the victim testified to the amount of medical bills and lost wages incurred without any documentation of those losses.
cited Cited "see" O'CONNELL v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988).
discussed Cited "see" Watson v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla.1988).
cited Cited "see" Santiago v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988); Section 775.089(1)(a) Florida Statutes (1993).
cited Cited "see" Stewart v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dyer v. State, 622 So.2d 1158, 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (citing State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla. 1988)); Perez v. State, 596 So.2d 487, 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
cited Cited "see" Mitchel v. CIGNA PROPERTY AND CAS. INS.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1988).
discussed Cited "see" LAD v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1988) (reversing sentence requiring defendant, who was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident, to pay restitution because damages were not caused by the offense).
discussed Cited "see" In the Interest of L.A.D. v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988) (reversing sentence requiring defendant, who was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident, to pay restitution because damages were not caused by the offense).
cited Cited "see" Ochoa v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1988), and Stewart v. State, 571 So.2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" State v. Steinolfson
N.D. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988) [defendant not required to pay restitution for damages caused in accident from which she fled].
cited Cited "see" Durand v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988) (restitution could not be ordered for injuries sustained in an accident where defendant was convicted only of leaving the scene of the accident).
cited Cited "see" Christenson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988).
cited Cited "see" In the Interest of N.O.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. State, 505 So.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), approved, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988).
cited Cited "see" GC v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277-78 (Fla. 1988).
cited Cited "see" G.C. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277-78 (Fla.1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." MP v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Id. at 483-84 ; see also State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277-78 (Fla.1988) (holding that defendant was not required to pay restitution to the victim where damages to the victim were not caused by defendant's leaving the scene of the accident); Milton v. State, 644 So.2d 143, 144 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (holding that defendant convicted of theft but who was not associated with burglary could not be required to make restitution for any items not included in the information); Faulkner v. State, 582 So.2d 783, 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (holding that restitution order may be sustained only where State h…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." M.P. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Id. at 483-84 ; see also State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277-78 (Fla.1988) (holding that defendant was not required to pay restitution to the victim where damages to the victim were not caused by defendant’s leaving the scene of the accident); Milton v. State, 644 So.2d 143, 144 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (holding that defendant convicted of theft but who was not associated with burglary could not be required to make restitution for any items not included in the information); Faulkner v. State, 582 So.2d 783, 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (holding that restitution order may be sustained only where State…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Shafer
Idaho Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988); Riner v. State, 389 So.2d 316 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980); State v. Beaudoin, 503 A.2d 1289 (Me. 1986); State v. Joyce, 681 N.W.2d 468 (S.D. 2004); City of Walla Walla v. Ashby, 90 Wash.App. 560 , 952 P.2d 201, 203 (1998), overruled on other grounds by State v. Enstone, 137 Wash.2d 675 , 974 P.2d 828, 830-31 (1999).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Cooley v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988) (court cannot impose restitution for damages which transpired independent of the crime).
cited Cited "see, e.g." S.E.G. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988) (defendant charged with leaving the scene of an accident could not be responsible for damages not caused directly or indirectly by her crime).
cited Cited "see, e.g." In the Interest of F.J.O. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Roxanne WILLIAMS, Respondent.
70580.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb 25, 1988.
520 So. 2d 276
Kogan.
Cited by 87 opinions  |  Published

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Davis G. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for petitioner.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and Phil Patterson, Asst. Public Defender, Second[*277] Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for respondent.

KOGAN, Justice.

This is a petition to review Williams v. State, 505 So.2d 478 (Fla.2d DCA 1987), in which the second district certified that its opinion was in conflict with Bowling v. State, 479 So.2d 146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). 505 So.2d at 480. We have jurisdiction, Article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and we approve the opinion of the Second District Court of Appeal.

Williams was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in personal injury. As a condition of probation, the trial court required her to pay restitution to her employer, or to her insurance company, if the claims made by the victim were reduced to judgment. On appeal, the second district reversed the probation condition on the grounds that the damages from the accident bore no relationship to the crime for which she was convicted. The state has petitioned this Court to review that decision.

The issue on appeal is whether the offense of leaving the scene of an accident bears a significant relationship to damages arising out of the accident. The starting point of our analysis must be the statute which justifies ordering restitution in these cases. The trial court's restitution order is controlled by section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985). That statute reads in pertinent part:

In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense, unless it finds reasons not to order such restitution [Emphasis added].

Williams argues that no damages were caused, either directly or indirectly by her offense of leaving the scene of an accident. While it is true that there were damages, she contends they could not have been caused by her flight from the scene. The state counters with the argument that leaving the scene was just one link in the chain of events in which injuries took place. Those events, an accident in which people were injured, and Williams' hasty departure, form a causal chain linking the offense of leaving the scene to the injuries sustained in the accident.

The state relies primarily on this Court's decision in J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737 (Fla. 1985). In that case, a juvenile was convicted of theft for stealing radio equipment out of a boat which was damaged extensively in the course of the theft. The trial court ordered the defendant to pay restitution for damages caused to the boat by his forcibly removing the bolted-down equipment from the boat and cutting a hole in the deck of the boat. The district court affirmed and this Court approved that decision, holding that the crime of theft bore a significant relationship to the damage to the boat. The Court reasoned that the theft of the equipment directly caused the damage to the boat. In other words, the damage to the boat would not have occurred but for the theft of the equipment. The state argues that the same reasoning should apply in this case. We disagree.

The damages arising out of the accident would have occurred with or without Williams committing the offense of leaving the scene of an accident. Those damages transpired independent of that crime. This Court, in J.S.H., allowed restitution in a case where there was a significant relationship between the damages and the offense. This significant relationship test does not replace the causal relationship required by section 775.089(1)(a). Rather, we believe that the significant relationship test enunciated in J.S.H. should work in conjunction with the causation required by the statute.

The state, in oral argument, has asked this Court to ignore the language in the statute regarding damages caused directly or indirectly by the offense. This we will not do. The language is in the statute with good reason. We cannot simply bypass the plain language of a statute simply because the state finds that language inconvenient. Section 775.089(1)(a) is not ambiguous. Our inquiry must necessarily end there. We may examine the legislative intent only[*278] where the statute is ambiguous on its face. Streeter v. Sullivan, 509 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1987); State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973).

The fifth district in Bowling v. State, 479 So.2d 146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), held that a defendant who is convicted of the crime of failure by one involved in an accident to stop and render aid to an injured person may be ordered to pay restitution damages where there is no question as to causation of the damages. Here there had been no determination that Williams caused the damages. It is clear that they were not caused by her leaving the scene of an accident. The only damages for which Williams may be ordered to pay restitution are those caused directly or indirectly by the act of leaving the scene of an accident. Accordingly, we approve the opinion of the second district, and remand this case to the trial court for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

McDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT and GRIMES, JJ., concur.