Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...First, as explained above, while a victim's (or a prosecutor's) wishes are relevant, they are simply one factor to be considered by the trial court. Second, a defendant's ability to pay restitution is a nonissue when the court is weighing the need for restitution versus the need for imprisonment. Section *1070 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1995), provides that ability to pay shall be considered at the time of enforcement of a restitution order—not at the time when the court is weighing the respective needs....

...State, 476 So.2d 158, 160 (Fla.1985), superseded on other grounds by ch. 87-110, § 2, Laws of Fla. [9] See Huff v. State, 569 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Fla.1990) ("[D]iscretion is abused only where no reasonable man [or woman] would take the view adopted by the trial court."). [10] Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1997), provides in relevant part: (6)(a) The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense....

...(b) The criminal court, at the time of enforcement of the restitution order, shall consider the financial resources of the defendant, the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his or her dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate. § 775.089(6), Fla....

...Such fines are reduced to judgment in favor of the state for the use of the particular county. §§ 142.01, .03, Fla. Stat. (1991). Both the clerk of circuit court and the Department of Corrections may be ordered to collect and dispense restitution payments. § 775.089(11), Fla....

...ict with Dickens v. State, 556 So.2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), on the issue of whether fair market value of property at the time of an offense is the only permissible basis for determining the amount of loss to be included in a restitution order under section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...d to properly establish the value of the automobile at the time of the theft. On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal agreed that the state had failed to carry its burden of proving the amount of loss sustained by the victim, as required under section 775.089(7)....

...used; (3) the general condition and quality of the item; and (4) the percentage of depreciation. Id. These are the same factors relied upon by the First District Court in Norman, Abbott and Hawthorne. The state contends that the explicit language of section 775.089 does not mandate a particular standard for determining the amount of loss, but rather leaves this determination to the discretion of the trial court, as long as the items listed in section 775.089(6) are considered....

...The state relies on the conflict case of Dickens which involved a similar claim that the amount of restitution was improperly computed because the trial court relied upon the purchase price of the stolen automobile rather than its fair market value at the time of the theft. 556 So.2d at 783. Noting that section 775.089 does not prescribe a method for computing the amount of restitution but rather leaves this matter to the discretion of the court, the Dickens court held that "[f]air market value at the time of the offense is clearly an appropriate way to determine the amount of the loss ......

...This Court has recognized that *333 "[t]he statutory provisions requiring the imposition of restitution recognize the discretion of the trial court in determining the amount of restitution." Spivey v. State, 531 So.2d 965, 966 (Fla. 1988). Furthermore, the plain language of section 775.089(6) provides that, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, the trial court shall consider "such other factors which it deems appropriate." [3] We recognize that in most instances the victim's los...

...Accordingly, we approve the reasoning of the district court in Dickens and quash the decision of the district court below and remand for reinstatement of the restitution portion of the trial court's order. It is so ordered. SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1987), provides in pertinent part: (1)(a) 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....

...nce to establish losses of $3660 in merchandise and cash and that Beall's had expended approximately $1600 in investigative costs. A divided district court affirmed, finding that the investigative costs were a proper item for restitution pursuant to section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), because those costs were incurred as a "direct or indirect result" of Glaubius' criminal misconduct....

...elationship between the crime committed and the damages sustained for the investigation. He also asserts that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay $360 in restitution for cash loss because that amount was repaid prior to charges being filed. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1993), [1] governs restitution of victims and provides in pertinent part as follows: (1)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988), to order restitution under the statute, the court must find that the loss or damage is causally connected to the offense and bears a significant relationship to the offense. Further, under the statute, the State must establish these factors by a preponderance of the evidence. § 775.089(7)....

...s' offense. As indicated above, the purpose of restitution is to adequately compensate a victim and to serve the rehabilitative, deterrent, and retributive goals of the criminal justice system. It is not to create a windfall for the victim. Further, section 775.089(7) requires that the State demonstrate the amount of loss sustained by a victim by a preponderance of the evidence....

...y is sole basis for determination and no documentary evidence is presented). To hold that the Beall's could recover $1600 based on the speculative evidence presented in this case would raise significant due process concerns regarding the validity of section 775.089 because such a holding would risk requiring Glaubius to pay a sum in excess of the amount of damages his criminal conduct caused the victim....

...ctates of this opinion. It is so ordered. SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., concurs in result only. NOTES [1] The offense at issue occurred between September 20, 1993, and December 13, 1994. Consequently, the 1993 version of section 775.089 governs this case....

...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)....

...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)....

...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....

...Champaign Urbana City Lines, Inc., 116 Ill.App.2d 289, 292 , 252 N.E.2d 381, 383 (1969). The issue in this restitution hearing was whether the juvenile victim’s parents suffered a loss or monetary expense “as a direct or indirect result of [appellant’s] offense or criminal episode.” § 775.089(l)(c), Fla....

...r concerns over fairness for the litigants. We also note that many other courts continue to adhere to the doctrine of mutuality. [2] Stogniew also contends that the legislature effectively abolished the doctrine of mutuality when it enacted sections 775.089(8) and 772.14, Florida Statutes (1993), [3] which give collateral estoppel effect to criminal convictions in subsequent civil proceedings brought by the victim of the crime....

...Board of Fire & Police Comm'rs, 158 Ill.2d 85, 196 Ill.Dec. 665, 630 N.E.2d 830 (1994); Lichon v. American Universal Ins. Co., 435 Mich. 408, 459 N.W.2d 288 (1990); Thomas M. McInnis & Assocs., Inc. v. Hall, 318 N.C. 421, 349 S.E.2d 552 (1986). [3] Section 775.089(8) provides: The conviction of a defendant for an offense involving the act giving rise to restitution under this section shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of that offense in any subsequent civil proceeding....

...great public importance: WHETHER A DEFENDANT WHO PLEADS NOLO CONTENDERE IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM SEEKING AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF OR DEFENDING A CLAIM IN A SUBSEQUENT CIVIL ACTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 772.14 AND 775.089(8), [1] FLORIDA STATUTES (1991)? 638 So.2d at 601-02....

...[10] Accordingly, we answer the certified question, as rephrased, in the affirmative, quash the decision under review, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 775.089(8) provides that a conviction of an offense giving rise to an order of restitution shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of that offense in any subsequent civil proceeding....

...[4] It appears Starr Tyme based its claim of estoppel at the trial level solely on section 772.14. In its motion in limine, Starr Tyme maintained that section 772.14 precluded Cohen from defending against its civil theft claim. Starr Tyme referred to section 775.089(9) only to argue by analogy that a plea of nolo contendere can result in a "judgment" or "conviction." From our reading of the record, Starr Tyme did not directly rely on section 775.089(9) for its claim of estoppel....

...able statutory provisions regarding restitution. Applicable Statutory Provisions Regarding Restitution Under the statutory scheme, there are three potential proceedings regarding restitution: (1) when the trial court assesses and orders restitution (§ 775.089(1), (6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011)); (2) when the State or the victim attempts to enforce the restitution order (§ 775.089(5), (6)(b), Fla....

...�§ 948.032, 948.06(5), Fla. Stat. (2011)). At the outset, it is important to consider that the defendant's financial resources or ability to pay does not have to be established when the trial court assesses and imposes restitution. To the contrary, section 775.089(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), provides: "The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense." A trial court is required to order restitution in addition to any punishment unless it finds "clear and compelling reasons" not to do so. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...That section, entitled "Terms and conditions of probation," states that the trial court "shall" make "restitution a condition of probation, unless it determines that clear and compelling reasons exist to the contrary." § 948.03(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Further, under both sections 775.089(1)(b)1....

...ustained by any victim as a result of the offense, the financial resources of the defendant, the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate. § 775.089(6), Fla....

...(b) The criminal court, at the time of enforcement of the restitution order, shall consider the financial resources of the defendant, the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his or her dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate. § 775.089(6), Fla....

...v. State, 679 So.2d 44, 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) ("[A] defendant's ability to pay is to be considered only when there is an attempt to enforce the restitution order."); Nieves v. State, 678 So.2d 468, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) ("[E]ffective May 8, 1995, section 775.089(6) was amended to provide that financial resources and ability to pay restitution shall be considered at the time of enforcement of a restitution order, rather than at the time restitution is ordered."); cf....

...held to be necessary ....' [ State v. Banks, 712 So.2d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).] This was error.... [A] defendant's ability to pay restitution is a nonissue when the court is weighing the need for restitution versus the need for imprisonment. Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1995), provides that ability to pay shall be considered at the time of enforcement of a restitution order—not at the time when the court is weighing the respective needs."). [3] An enforcement proceeding arises when either the State or the victim seek to enforce the order. Section 775.089(5) provides: "An order of restitution may be enforced by the state, or by a victim named in the order to receive the restitution, in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action." § 775.089(5), Fla. Stat. *1008 (2011); see also § 960.001(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (2011) ("Law enforcement agencies and the state attorney shall inform the victim of the victim's right to request and receive restitution pursuant to s. 775.089 or s. 985.437, and of the victim's rights of enforcement under ss. 775.089(6) and 985.0301 [ [4] ] in the event an offender does not comply with a restitution order."). A trial court is required to consider the defendant's financial resources during an enforcement proceeding. Section 775.089(6)(b) requires the trial court, "at the time of the enforcement of the restitution order," to "consider the financial resources of the defendant, the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his or her dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate." § 775.089(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes, discusses the applicable burdens: Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence....

...ition of probation. We thus turn to the statutes that govern restitution as a condition of probation, which is where the probationer's liberty may be affected by the failure to pay. For a defendant placed on probation, "any restitution ordered under s. 775.089 shall be a condition of the probation." § 948.032, Fla....

...At the initial restitution hearing, a trial court is required to award restitution to a victim for damage or loss indirectly or directly caused by the defendant's offense and for damage or loss that relates to the defendant's criminal episode unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to do so. See § 775.089, Fla. Stat. (2011). In the trial court's determination, it must consider the amount of the loss sustained by the victim, see id. § 775.089(6)(a), and the *1020 State bears the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, the amount of damage or loss sustained by the victim, see id. § 775.089(7)....

...on awarded to the victim "must be established through more than mere speculation; it must be based on competent evidence"). Next, a final restitution order is enforceable by the State or victim in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action. See § 775.089(5); see also Sims v....

...efendant to pay through an examination of "the financial resources of the defendant, the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his or her dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate." § 775.089(6)(b). At this stage, a defendant can stop the enforcement of a restitution order if he or she can establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, an inability to satisfy the financial demands of that order. See id. § 775.089(5)-(6); see also Banks v. State, 732 So.2d 1065, 1070 (Fla.1999) ("Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1995), provides that ability to pay shall be considered at the time of enforcement of a restitution order—not at the time when the court is weighing the respective needs."). Therefore, since the Legislature amended section 775.089(6) in 1995, it is clear that during any civil enforcement proceeding a defendant may establish an inability to pay....

...orce a civil judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.570). Lastly, when a defendant is placed on probation by a trial court, the trial court is required to condition that probation on compliance with any restitution order issued pursuant to section 775.089....

...For these reasons, we reverse the restitution order and remand for an evidentiary hearing." (citing Filmore v. State, 656 So.2d 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995))), review denied 39 So.3d 320 (Fla. 2010), and cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 476, 178 L.Ed.2d 302 (2010); Exilorme v. State, 857 So.2d 339, 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ("Section 775.089(7) requires a hearing, before restitution is imposed, to determine the amount owed to the victim as well as the defendant's ability to pay.... Subsections 775.089(6) and (7) require a hearing to determine both the defendant's ability to pay and the amount owed." (citing Allen v....

...nce the same question certified in Young v. State, supra . REVERSED and REMANDED for resentencing. WENTWORTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Had the trial court below ordered appellant to make restitution in the case at bar, in conformity with Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1983), after notice to appellant and the opportunity to be heard as to whether he had the ability to pay restitution, see Harris v....

...ense must be apportioned among them according to the culpability of each. We agree with the state. The statutory provisions requiring the imposition of restitution recognize the discretion of the trial court in determining the amount of restitution. Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), states 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). Clearly the statute contemplates that a defendant may be required to pay restitution for damages caused by defendant's offense but for which he is not solely responsible. Further, section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1985), reinforces the discretion of the trial court in ordering restitution: The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustai...

...nse in an amount to be determined by the court." (Emphasis added). [2] We note that petitioner failed to object and present evidence of his inability to pay the ordered restitution and so has waived his right to challenge the order on those grounds. § 775.089(7), Fla....

...the amount of $1,000.00 to the daughter, as a condition of his community control. On appeal, the state concedes that it was error to impose restitution without an evidentiary hearing, in light of appellant's objection regarding the amount. We agree. Section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1995), unambiguously provides that "[a]ny dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence....

...1st DCA 1993) (state's burden of proving amount of restitution cannot be met, in face of objection, by assertions of state attorney). We also agree with the state that the present restitution statute, like its predecessors, is broad enough to permit restitution for lost wages and travel expenses incurred by a victim. Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), provides that "the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for ... [d]amage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense ... and ... [d]amage or loss related to the defendant's criminal episode." Moreover, section 775.089(2)(b) expressly permits reimbursement for income lost as a result of the offense, even if the victim has not sustained any bodily injury....

...April 22, 1982) (remarks of Sen. Chiles) (“it provides the remedy of restitution as a sentencing tool for judges”). . A number of state sentencing statutes that authorize restitution also provide for civil enforcement of the restitution order. See, e.g., Fla.Stat.Ann. § 775.089(6) (West Supp.1983); Ga.Code Ann....

...y case. (i) A sentence imposed below the lowest permissible sentence established by the Criminal Punishment Code under chapter 921. (j) A ruling granting a motion for judgment of acquittal after a jury verdict. (k) An order denying restitution under s. 775.089....

...In 1992, this Court held that section 924.07 did not authorize an appeal from an order denying restitution. See State v. MacLeod, 600 So.2d 1096 (Fla.1992). The next year, the Legislature added subsection (1)(k), authorizing the State to appeal "an order denying restitution under section 775.089." See ch....

...Champaign Urbana City Lines, Inc., 116 Ill.App.2d 289, 292, 252 N.E.2d 381, 383 (1969). The issue in this restitution hearing was whether the juvenile victim's parents suffered a loss or monetary expense "as a direct or indirect result of [appellant's] offense or criminal episode." § 775.089(1)(c), Fla....

...g offense of driving with a suspended license where the State does not present any evidence of a causal relationship between the act of driving without a license and the accident that resulted in damages or loss. Until 1993, the restitution statute, section 775.089, provided in pertinent part: (1)(a) 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 clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution. § 775.089, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1992). In 1993, the Legislature amended this subsection of 775.089 by adding subsection (1)(a)(2), so that the current version of the statute provides in pertinent part: (1)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1. Damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense; and 2. Damage or loss related to the defendant's criminal episode, unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001). [3] The State has the burden of establishing causation, *1279 see Glaubius, 688 So.2d at 915, as well as the "burden of demonstrating the amount of loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense." § 775.089(7), Fla....

...on of the crime. See id. Therefore, the Court held that a significant relationship existed between the damages and the offense, and thus the trial court properly ordered restitution. See id. *1280 In Williams, 520 So.2d at 277, the Court interpreted section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), the predecessor statute to the present statute, which provided that the court "shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defenda...

...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)....

...Likewise, in J.O.S., 689 So.2d at 1064, the Court once again reviewed the requirements *1281 for an award of restitution and reaffirmed the principle articulated in J.S.H. and Williams that the "significant relationship" test works in conjunction with the causal relationship test set forth in section 775.089(1)(a). [5] The Court further noted in dicta that the 1995 version of section 775.089(1)(a)(2) "includes an additional restitutionary obligation for `damage or loss related to the defendant's criminal episode' which was not present in the 1985 version of the statute." Id....

...WELLS, C.J., concurs in result only with an opinion. QUINCE, J., dissents. WELLS, C.J., concurring in result only. I concur in result only because I conclude that all that needs to be written in this case is that there was no basis for restitution under section 775.089, Florida Statutes, because the victim's injuries were not caused directly or indirectly by reason that petitioner's license was suspended....

...the state the opportunity to submit documentary evidence to prove the amount of the victim's damages." Id. at 937. Based on our disposition in this case, we express no view as to the merits of this holding. [3] There were several other amendments to section 775.089 in 1993, including the addition of section 775.089(1)(b)(2), which provides: An order of restitution entered as part of a plea agreement is as definitive and binding as any other order of restitution, and a statement to such effect must be made part of the plea agreement....

...ision that provided that the restitution order would become a lien on real estate owned by the defendant when properly recorded, and a provision that provided that the restitution provision was not subject to discharge in bankruptcy. The addition of section 775.089(1)(a)(2) is not mentioned in the legislative history for the 1993 amendments to section 775.089. The legislative history mentions only two purposes: (1) amending section 775.089(1)(b) to provide that "an order of restitution entered as part of a plea agreement is as binding as any other order of restitution"; and (2) amending section 775.089(3) to provide "that if restitution ordered by the court is not made within the specified time period, the court may continue the restitution order through the duration of the civil judgment provisions." H.R....

...order the child or parent to make restitution for the damages or loss caused by his offense .... (Emphasis supplied.) [5] The Court concluded that the analysis was equally applicable under both section 39.054(1)(f), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), and section 775.089(1)(a)....

...gned by the child's parent or guardian, or in kind for any damages or loss caused by the child's offense in a reasonable amount or manner to be determined by the court. (Emphasis supplied.) [6] This Court's statement in J.O.S. that the amendments to section 775.089 "expand[ed] the criteria for ordering restitution" appears only in the title to chapter 93-37. Ch. 93-37, § 1, at 198, Laws of Fla. (1993). As noted in footnote 3, the legislative history is silent on the purpose for adding section 775.089(1)(a)(2)....

...4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (rejecting notion that damages must be reasonably foreseeable or that the element of causation should be likened to the proximate causation requirement in tort, because this would be more restrictive than the "clear language" of section 775.089(1)(a))....

...denied, ___ U.S.___, 123 S.Ct. 2281, 156 L.Ed.2d 134 (2003); State v. Glatzmayer, 789 So.2d 297, 301-02 n. 2 (Fla.2001). We begin with the language of Florida's restitution statute, which is the source of the trial court's authority to order restitution. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2002), [5] states in relevant part: (1)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...Reimburse the victim for income lost by the victim as a result of the offense. .... (8) ... An order of restitution hereunder will not bar any subsequent civil remedy or recovery, but the amount of such restitution shall be set off against any subsequent independent civil recovery. (Emphasis supplied.) Section 775.089(1)(a) requires the trial court to order a defendant to make restitution for damage or loss caused by the defendant's offense or related to the defendant's criminal episode unless the trial court finds clear and compelling reasons not to order restitution. See § 775.089(1)(a). [6] When probation is imposed, the statute also requires the court to order restitution as a condition of probation. See § 775.089(1)(a)(2)....

...o release a defendant from his financial debt to the state any more than it could terminate his prison sentence. Id. at 627 (citations, quotation marks, and footnotes omitted). In addition to the distinct purposes served by restitution, we note that section 775.089(8) contemplates the coexistence of criminal restitution and a civil recovery....

...The statute provides that the amount of restitution shall be set off against any civil recovery, reflecting the Legislature's recognition that although the restitution obligation is primary, the victim should not receive a double recovery. Although section 775.089(8) assumes that restitution will precede a civil recovery, as the Fourth District has recognized, the sequence is not determinative....

...reement and release in the civil case. [8] Of course, the amount of the settlement will be a relevant factor for the trial court to consider in determining the amount of restitution so as to prevent a *245 double recovery, which would be contrary to section 775.089(8). See Weinstein, 745 So.2d at 1086. THIS CASE In this case, imposing a restitution obligation on Kirby will not give the victim a double recovery, which is precluded by the "setoff" requirement of section 775.089(8)....

...[5] Although the crime occurred in 1999, we note that the current version does not differ from the 1999 statute. [6] If the court does not order restitution, or orders restitution of only a portion of the damages, the court is required by statute to "state on the record in detail the reasons thereof." § 775.089(1)(b) 1. [7] In addition to section 775.089(1), section 948.03(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1999), also imposes this requirement....

...The court shall make such reparation or restitution a condition of probation, unless it determines that clear and compelling reasons exist to the contrary. If the court does not order restitution, or orders restitution of only a portion of the damages, as provided in s. 775.089, it shall state on the record in detail the reasons therefor....

...s possession and to damages incurred during the burglary of the victim's home. A defendant cannot be required to pay restitution in excess of the damages his criminal conduct caused. See Fresneda v. State, 347 So.2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 1977). And see §§ 775.089(1)(a), 948.03(1)(e), Fla....

...player) must be reversed. Turning next to the sufficiency of the evidence presented to prove the amount of restitution for the items found in appellant's possession, it is axiomatic that it is the state's burden to show the amount of loss sustained. § 775.089(7), Fla....

..." has been liberally construed in the context of a statute which defines a criminal defendant's rights in a later civil case arising out of the criminal conduct. In Smith v. Bartlett, 570 So.2d 360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), the fifth district interpreted section 775.089(8), Florida Statutes (1989), which provided that *1088 [t]he conviction of a defendant for an offense involving the act giving rise to restitution... shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of that offense in any subsequent civil proceeding. Smith held that "one who pleads guilty or is found guilty by a jury has been `convicted' under the provisions of section 775.089(8), even in the absence of an adjudication." Id....

...probation and may include among them the following, that the probationer shall: * * * * * * (g) Make reparation or restitution to the aggrieved party for the damage or loss caused by his offense in an amount to be determined by the court. Similarly, Section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1981), provides: (1) In addition to any punishment, the court may order the defendant to make restitution to the aggrieved party for damage or loss caused by the defendant's offense, if the defendant is able or will be able to make such restitution....

...r the appellant has been charged with a failure to comply with the probation officer's payment schedule. We disagree that the defendant must wait until that time to raise such objections to the court's restitution order. Cf. Reeves v. State, supra ; Section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1981)....

...resources on behalf of the State in prosecuting the case, I am giving each of you some credit for that...." Here, as the trial judge properly noted, there was neither any "restitution" [7] nor any "victim" [8] as those terms are defined by sections 775.089(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1999)....

...State v. Powell, 703 So.2d 444 (Fla.1997). Because the prison sentences were suspended, the sentences fall below the lowest permissible sentence and are treated as downward departure sentences. State v. Clay, 780 So.2d 269, 270 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). [7] Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes, defines restitution as follows: (1)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...Damage or loss related to the defendant's criminal episode, unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution. Restitution may be monetary or nonmonetary restitution. The court shall make the payment of restitution a condition of probation in accordance with s. 948.03. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999). [8] Section 775.089(1)(c), Florida Statutes, defines "victim" as follows: (1)(c) The term "victim" as used in this section and in any provision of law relating to restitution means each person who suffers property damage or loss, monetary expense, or physical injury or death as a direct or indirect result of the defendant's offense or criminal episode, and also includes the victim's estate if the victim is deceased, and the victim's next of kin if the victim is deceased as a result of the offense. § 775.089(1)(c), Fla....

...ctims as a condition of sentence. Section 39.054 addresses generally a court's power of disposition in juvenile proceedings, while subsection (1)(f) specifically provides the authority to order restitution which a court may do in its discretion. [5] Section 775.089 is a restitution statute which is part of Florida's Criminal Code....

...al episode. [7] Therefore, once a juvenile defendant is adjudicated delinquent or an adult defendant found guilty, restitution is an appropriate sanction for juveniles under section 39.054(1)(f) and a mandatory sanction for criminal defendants under section 775.089(1)(a)....

...ibe 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). In State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1988), we interpreted section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), [9] a substantially similar predecessor to the 1995 version of section 775.089(1)(a) at issue in this case. In concluding that restitution may only be ordered if a causal relationship exists between the offense and the damage or loss, we stated that the substantial relationship test from J.S.H. should work in conjunction with section 775.089(1)(a)....

...EA AGREEMENT EXPRESSLY LEAVES THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION TO THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT? The defendants in Hebert had been charged with third-degree grand theft, but pled guilty to petit theft under a plea agreement which left restitution under section 775.089(1)(a) expressly to the trial court's discretion....

...stitution amounts to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at the criminal proceedings in cases where the defendant's alleged offense is defined by reference to a dollar amount. Id. The First District concluded that such a position would conflict with section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), which states that the burden of proof in establishing the amount of restitution is by a preponderance of the evidence....

...In so doing, we do not limit trial courts' discretion on the amount of restitution to only those plea *1065 agreements which expressly so provide. Thus, we answer the question we left unanswered in Hebert. Applying the substantial relationship test from J.S.H. to section 39.054(1)(f) and section 775.089(1)(a) will allow courts to order restitution greater than a maximum dollar value defining an offense for which a defendant is adjudicated guilty....

...J.S.H. as applied to section 39.11(1)(g) is equally applicable to its successor statute, section 39.054(1)(f). Furthermore, consistent with our decision in Williams, we likewise apply the "significant relationship" test to criminal defendants under section 775.089(1)(a) which requires a court to order a defendant to make restitution for damage or loss "caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense" and "related to the defendant's criminal episode." Therefore, since we have determined...

...on below. It is so ordered. OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] We rephrase the certified question to make clear that its answer is equally applicable under both section 39.054(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1995) and section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995)....

...The question certified by the First District uses the phrase "for which a child is adjudicated a delinquent child." We rephrase this passage to read "for which a defendant is adjudicated guilty" because there is nothing in either section 39.054(1)(f) or section 775.089(1)(a) which would require a different answer to the certified question for juvenile and adult proceedings....

...to make restitution in money, through a promissory note cosigned by the child's parent or guardian, or in kind for any damage or loss caused by the child's offense in a reasonable amount or manner to be determined by the court. (Emphasis added). [6] Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...itution to the victim for: 1. Damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense; and 2. Damage or loss related to the defendant's criminal episode, unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution. [7] Section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...[9] The statute read 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. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985). [10] The 1995 version of section 775.089(1)(a)2 includes an additional restitutionary obligation for "damage or loss related to the defendant's criminal episode" which was not present in the 1985 version of the statute.

...We review restitution orders using an abuse of discretion standard. See Ashton v. State, 790 So.2d 1115, 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The burden of proving the amount of restitution is on the State, and the amount must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. See § 775.089(7), Fla....

...5th DCA 2001). Restitution must be proved by substantial competent evidence. See Sparkman v. State, 445 So.2d 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). III. Restitution generally. The State asserts that based on its reading of the restitution statute, the awards were lawful. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2003), the statute governing restitution as a condition of probation, states in pertinent part that: (1)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...The court examined section 39.054(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1995), which authorizes restitution against juvenile offenders, and noted that: Generally, costs resulting from participation in court proceedings are not recoverable, absent a specific statute authorizing them. Id., at 177. The court recognized that section 775.089(2)(b) permits restitution for income lost by the victim as a result of the offense, but determined that the restitution statute also requires the application of the significant relationship test....

...We turn now to a consideration of the award of restitution for lost future earnings of the decedent. V. Lost wages of the murder victim. If the decedent had survived, there is no question but that he would have been entitled to a restitution award of his lost wages. See Graham. Section 775.089(2)(b), Florida Statutes, specifically authorizes the recovery of lost income for victims who have suffered a bodily injury as a result of a defendant's offense....

...As to all other parts of the restitution order other than those addressed in this opinion, we affirm. VI. Certified questions. We recognize that the issues presented to us are of great public importance, and therefore certify to the Florida Supreme Court, the following two questions: DOES SECTION 775.089, FLORIDA STATUTES (2003), AUTHORIZE A RESTITUTION AWARD FOR THE LOST WAGES OF A NEXT OF KIN VOLUNTARILY ATTENDING THE MURDER TRIAL OF THE PERSON ACCUSED OF KILLING THE VICTIM? DOES SECTION 775.089, FLORIDA STATUTES (2003), AUTHORIZE A *828 RESTITUTION AWARD FOR THE ESTATE OF A MURDER VICTIM OF AN AMOUNT CONSISTING OF THE LOST FUTURE INCOME OF THE VICTIM? AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED with instructions....

...RESTITUTION ORDER Iaconetti also contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion to correct a sentencing error because the restitution order was entered without a hearing and without any evidence being presented concerning the proper amount of restitution. We agree. Section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (2002), requires the trial court to hold a hearing before restitution is imposed to determine the amount of restitution....

...Additionally, in Schuette v. State, 822 So.2d 1275 (Fla.2002), this Court held that for the imposition of a restitution award, there must be a causal connection [9] between the accident that produced damages and the underlying crime. See id. at 1284. We reasoned that section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001), which states that restitution shall be ordered for any "[d]amage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense," imposes a causation requirement....

...Rodriguez to escape, to obtain the axe, and to wound the deputy. Thus, the State maintained that Mrs. Rodriguez's obstruction offense had a significant relationship with the deputy's injuries and restitution for the cost of his medical treatment was proper under section 775.089(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (2003) (stating that restitution shall be ordered for the victim's "[d]amage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense")....

...itution imposed did not reflect the market value of the items taken; and that the amount specified should have been offset by items recovered and returned to the victim. The amount of restitution for stolen property as a condition of probation under section 775.089 should be based on the fair market value of the property at the time of the theft....

...Because "restitution cannot exceed the damage caused," Wilson v. State, 452 So.2d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), the trial court in addition erred in failing to determine what items the victim recovered and to offset the value of those items from the total amount of restitution. Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1987), provides: *413 The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense, the financial resources of the defendant, the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate. Section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1987), provides that the burden of demonstrating the financial resources of the defendant and his dependents is on the defendant....

...The requirement of rule 3.172 and section 775.084 concerning preplea notice of habitualization is clearly a legal matter, involving no factual determination. Consequently, even though the propriety of directing L.A.D.'s mother to pay restitution was not raised below, we nonetheless address the issue on its merits. *108 Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), provides that a defendant shall "make restitution to the victim for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense....

...um of $8500 in *993 restitution. The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. We agree with the appellant's contention that the state did not present sufficient, competent evidence to support the court's determination of the amount of restitution. Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), requires the trial court to impose restitution unless it finds reasons not to do so....

...appellant's ability to pay. See Palag v. State, 622 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Before a trial court grants a motion for restitution, it shall consider several factors, including the loss by the victim and appellant's ability to pay restitution. § 775.089(6), Fla....

...y considering the obligations which the Debtor faced if convicted of the criminal charges, the risk of conviction, and the costs of defense. [3] If convicted of the criminal charges, the Debtor could have been required to make restitution (Fla.Stat. § 775.089) and pay the costs of investigation and prosecution (Fla.Stat....

...ce recovery. The court then ordered restitution in the amounts of $10,325.00 to victim Pennington and $18,883.00 to victim Simpson. Appellant appeals from these findings but does not challenge the amount ordered paid to the third victim. We reverse. Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...Mink further testified that in the instant cases he did not even offer all the items to appellant. We think this evidence is insufficient from which to "... determine the proportion of the total losses attributable to the [appellant's] offense as ..." required by section 775.089(1)(a)....

...icient to establish that value. Even less is it sufficient when, again as here, the victims' opinions to a large extent were "estimates." Finally, we note that while the burden was on appellant to establish inability to pay the amounts assessed, see section 775.089(7), there was virtually no evidence below bearing on appellant's ability to pay some $29,000.00 in restitution....

...take salvage value into consideration, he should have presented evidence as to that value. However, "[t]he burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense is on the state attorney," not the defendant. § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (1995). Accordingly, we reverse the order of restitution and remand for further proceedings in accordance with the requirements of section 775.089 and this opinion....

...Because we are remanding for another hearing, we also address the trial court's determination regarding the defendant's ability to pay. The restitution statute that applies in this case requires the trial court to determine the defendant's ability to pay restitution before imposing restitution. [1] Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), provides, in pertinent part: (6) The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of th...

...See Jarawdi v. State, 521 So.2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Amison v. State, 504 So.2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new restitution hearing in accordance with this opinion. BLUE, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 775.089(6) was amended, effective May 8, 1995, to provide that a defendant's ability to pay is to be considered only when there is an attempt to enforce the restitution order....

...Most, if not all, of the damage was caused by the driver, first, when he stole the vehicle, and second, when he negligently parked it so that it rolled away and was damaged. Since the defendant must have caused the damage or loss, at least indirectly, in order to support an order of restitution, § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...State, 588 So.2d 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991): Turning next to the sufficiency of the evidence presented to prove the amount *1149 of restitution for the items found in appellant's possession, it is axiomatic that it is the state's burden to show the amount of loss sustained. § 775.089(7), Fla....

...We affirm the conviction without discussion. We reverse the trial court's restitution order and remand for further proceedings. When the state seeks restitution it has the burden of proving the amount of the victim's loss by a preponderance of the evidence. § 775.089(7), Fla....

...In support of the motion, the plaintiffs argued that the defendant is estopped from denying the allegation that she stole money from the plaintiffs where she had already admitted that she had done so by her guilty plea in the underlying criminal charges. See §§ 775.089(8) and 772.14, Fla.Stats....

...where her affidavit in opposition of summary judgment raises a question of material fact. We disagree. The defendant now wishes to deny, through her affidavit, the very fact which she plead guilty, that she stole $20,000 or more from the plaintiffs. Section 775.089(8), Florida Statute (1985) reads in pertinent part as follows: "The conviction of a defendant for an offense involving the act giving rise to restitution under this section shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of that offense in any subsequent civil proceeding." § 775.089(8), Fla. Stat. (1985). Section 775.089(8) requires that the defendant be convicted of "an offense involving the act giving rise to restitution under this section......

...1988) (guilty plea is an agreement for the entry of a conviction); Lee v. State, 204 So.2d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), cert. denied, 210 So.2d 868 (Fla. 1968) (guilty plea is a conviction). Secondly, there is no dispute that the defendant was convicted of an offense for which restitution was ordered. As a result, section 775.089(8) mandates that the defendant is estopped "from denying the essential allegations of that offense in any subsequent civil proceeding." In the instant case, the "essential allegations," inter alia, are that the defendant committed the...

...e of others. Thus, the defendant's affidavit in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment does not, by law, raise a genuine issue as to any material fact. The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in finding that Section 775.089(8) is constitutional as applied to her case. We disagree. *1351 Florida courts have not dealt with the constitutionality of section 775.089(8), and thus the federal court's treatment of its similar section is applicable. Section 775.089(8) is almost identical to 18 U.S.C....

...the intent to deprive them of the right to their property and appropriated the property for her use or for the use of others. Thus, we find that the facts underlying the criminal offense were stipulated through a guilty plea. [5] Since we find that Section 775.089(8), Florida Statutes (1985), is constitutional and that the trial court did not err in granting the partial summary judgment as to the issue of liability, we find no need in addressing the plaintiffs' contention that Section 772.14, F...

...After he changed his original plea of not guilty to guilty, the trial court adjudicated him guilty of these offenses. He was given a recommended guidelines sentence of seventeen years in prison with two consecutive three-year mandatory sentences. The trial judge, however, failed to comply with section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1985), which requires that the court award restitution to the victims unless it states reasons not to do so....

...Once the notice of appeal had been filed, the trial court was divested of jurisdiction. Wolfson v. State, 437 So.2d 174 (Fla.2d DCA 1983). Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the amended sentence. Dailey's original sentence, however, was incomplete. Therefore, on remand the trial court shall comply with section 775.089(1)(a) which, since 1984, has required that the court order restitution unless reasons exist not to do so....

...Because Escambia County incurred a loss of nearly $1 million in purchasing the soccer complex and later selling it, the State sought an award of restitution to the County. The trial court denied restitution, concluding that the County was not a "victim" entitled to restitution as defined by section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2002)....

...Restitution The State argued below for restitution, noting that Escambia County suffered a loss of nearly $1 million when it sold the soccer complex after the commission's purchase. The trial court denied restitution, ruling that Escambia County was not a "victim" as that term is used in section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2002). Section 775.089(1) mandates an award of restitution to victims. Section 775.089(1)(c) defines a "victim" as a " person who suffers property damage or loss, monetary expense, or physical injury or death as a direct or indirect result of the defendant's offense or criminal episode....

...es, corporations, and all other groups or combinations. *597 (emphasis added). The appellant argued below and argues on appeal that, since Escambia County is a political subdivision of the state, rather than a "person" as defined in section 1.01(3), section 775.089 does not authorize a restitution award in favor of the county....

...Federal Trade Comm'n, 596 F.2d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir.1979), rev'd on other grounds, 449 U.S. 232, 238 n. 7, 101 S.Ct. 488, 66 L.Ed.2d 416 (1980); Toombs v. City of Champaign, 245 Ill.App.3d 580, 185 Ill.Dec. 755, 615 N.E.2d 50, 52 (1993). In considering whether Escambia County is a "person" in the context of section 775.089(1), we also find persuasive the Second District's reasoning in South Florida Water Mgmt....

...1st DCA 2001)(Department of Transportation is a "person" within meaning of section 180.13(2), Florida Statutes (2000)). Further, in chapter 960, Florida Statutes (2002), we find unmistakable legislative intent that a county is entitled to restitution pursuant to section 775.089(1)....

...Most significantly, the legislature further provided, that "[n]otwithstanding this civil restitution lien act, the crime victim, the state and its local subdivisions, or other aggrieved parties are not precluded from collecting . . . moneys awarded by a restitution order under s. 775.089....

...State, 846 So.2d 662, 662-63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Sheppard v. State, 753 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); and Sims v. State, 746 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), do not address the issue raised here: whether a county is barred from entitlement to restitution pursuant to section 775.089 because it is not a "person." In each of these cases, the court recognized that section 775.089 did not allow restitution to a governmental entity for investigative, prosecutorial, or supervisory costs relating to the prosecution of the defendant because these expenses do not constitute the type of loss necessary to make the entity a "victim" within the meaning of the statute....

...For this reason, too, the trial court did not err in excluding the Notice and attendant statements. As for whether the government or a subdivision thereof is a "person," § 1.01(3), Fla. Stat. (2002), within the meaning of the definition of "victim," § 775.089(1)(c), Fla....

...Stat. (2002) (requiring that "when the language [of a penal statute] is susceptible of differing constructions, it shall be construed most favorably to the accused"). Under accepted principles, Escambia County cannot be a "victim" within the meaning of section 775.089(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2002)....

...The majority opinion fails to acknowledge that the language it (selectively) quotes from section 960.295(2) can be fully explained by antecedent provisions that, while they render convicts financially liable to the state, do not authorize restitution awards under section 775.089(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2002)....

...State, 753 So.2d 748, 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ("The Division of Insurance Fraud is not a "victim" in this case and cannot receive restitution."); Sims v. State, 746 So.2d 546, 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ("The State does not qualify as a victim for payment of restitution pursuant to section 775.089(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1997).")....

...[2] Because I would reverse the conviction, I do not reach the question of restitution raised by the State on cross-appeal. Although I agree with much of the sentiment expressed in the majority opinion, that opinion creates direct conflict by its interpretation of section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2002)....

...This amount was based solely on the evidence contained in the new discovery materials presented by the State at the restitution hearing. Malarkey now appeals the restitution order, arguing that the trial court erred by awarding restitution for items that were not related to the theft charged in the information. We agree. Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), provides that the court may order a defendant to make restitution to a victim for: 1....

...However, Bass is correct in his point that the trial court erred in finding him in violation of the restitution and fine conditions of probation without making a finding that he had the ability to pay. Restitution is a trial court option which may operate in conjunction with punishment, pursuant to Section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1983), or as a condition of probation pursuant to Section 948.03(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1983). Section 775.089(1) contains the proviso that restitution may be ordered "if the defendant is able or will be able to make such restitution." There is authority, however, for the proposition that this safeguard is not available if the probation result...

...n open court." Pollock v. Bryson, 450 So.2d 1183, 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), citing G.H. v. State, 414 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In such circumstances, which pertain in the instant case, the probationer is deemed to have waived the protection of Section 775.089(1) at the time he entered into the plea agreement....

...its earlier case of Williams v. State, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1988), the supreme court only dealt with the merits of the appeal. A reading of Williams reveals that the state was attempting to convince the court to go beyond the statutory requirement of section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985) that restitution to a victim should be limited "for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense." Id., at 277-278....

...I cannot agree that restitution ordered for items stolen from the victim's home, which the majority acknowledges was "improper", cannot be challenged on appeal because the defendant failed to object below to the lack of causation required by sections 775.089(1)(a) and 948.03(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...Thus, I conclude the supreme court intends this issue to be dealt with as it was in Williams. I do not think Larson v. State, 572 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 1991) is controlling on this issue. Larson dealt with an optional, otherwise legal condition of probation. Restitution, on the other hand, is mandated by section 775.089(1)(a) and its parameters are set forth in the statute....

...the commission of the crime but resulted from the witnesses' attendance at the hearing. Id. at 809. Generally, costs resulting from participation in court proceedings are not recoverable, absent a specific statute authorizing them. We recognize that section 775.089(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), permits restitution for "income lost by the victim as a result of the offense." Even assuming that section 775.889(2)(b) is applicable to juvenile proceedings, we read it as requiring application of the same "significant relationship" *177 test as section 39.054(1)(f)....

...State, 681 So.2d 1136, 1140 (Fla.1996) ("While a trial court cannot impose an illegal sentence pursuant to a plea bargain, it can impose a negotiated sentence that is not specifically authorized by statute.") (citations omitted), receded from on other grounds, Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173 (Fla.2001). [3] Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part that "the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim ......

...itution. Thomas v. State, 517 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Snell v. State, 502 So.2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 509 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 1987); Pellot v. State, 582 So.2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We have not done so by appellate whim or caprice. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1989), orders restitution only after the trial court considers "the financial resources of the defendant" including his "present and potential future financial needs and earning ability......

...er denying restitution because that order does not result in an illegal sentence. The district court certified *1097 the following question as one of great public importance: WHETHER A TRIAL COURT'S ORDER DENYING A MOTION FOR RESTITUTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 775.089, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989) MAY BE APPEALED BY THE STATE....

...For the reasons expressed, we answer the question in the negative and approve the decision of the district court. MacLeod was charged with DUI causing serious bodily injury, a third-degree felony, to which he entered a plea of no contest. At his sentencing hearing, the State sought restitution pursuant to the provisions of section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1989), as part of MacLeod's sentence....

...The State argues that, since the trial judge denied restitution, MacLeod's sentence is illegal. The State further asserts that a prior insurance settlement for the victim's injury is not a proper ground to bar it from seeking restitution for a victim of this type of offense. Florida's restitution statute, section 775.089(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that "[i]f the court does not order restitution ......

...en the amount was not mentioned at the revocation proceeding. Moreover, the record before this court is silent with regard to the manner in which the restitution amount was determined."). On remand the court may impose restitution in accordance with section 775.089, Florida Statutes....

...1st DCA 1991). On remand, if the parties cannot agree on amounts, a restitution hearing will be necessary. At any such hearing, Allred should not be precluded from demonstrating his present and future financial resources and needs in accordance with section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes....

...ained by the victim as well as defendant's ability to pay the assessed amount. Accordingly, the restitution is vacated and remanded to the lower court for reimposition, if appropriate, upon proper notice, hearing and pronouncement in compliance with section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1993)....

..."Restitution must be proved by substantial competent evidence." Koile v. State, 902 So.2d 822, 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Absent clear and compelling reasons not to order restitution, a court shall order restitution to the victim for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Where the proper amount of restitution is in dispute, the burden is on the state to prove the amount of the loss by a preponderance of the evidence. § 775.089(7), Fla....

...addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1. Damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense; and 2. Damage or loss related to the defendant's criminal episode.... § 775.089(1)(a), Fla.Stat....

...ue of the offense which a defendant is found to have committed. In particular, we note that the state is obliged to establish the amount of restitution only by the greater weight of the evidence, rather than to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat....

...Appellant does not contest the court's implicit finding that the appellant was responsible for the theft of the above sum. It is true that the defendant had a right to require the court to consider the ability of the defendant to pay the restitution at the time of the entry of the restitution order. See Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.); Ballance v. State, 447 So.2d 974, 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). However, the defendant, by failing to assert, at any point in the proceedings below, his rights under Section 775.089(6), or to otherwise assert in any manner an inability to pay the restitution, waived his right to raise on appeal from the subject order the trial court's failure to determine the defendant's financial ability to pay. Section 775.089(7) provides, in pertinent part: "(7) * * * The burden of demonstrating the financial resources of the defendant and the financial needs of the defendant and his dependents is on the defendant." Of course, in the case at bar, unlike such cases exemplified by Fresneda v....

...of appointment of the public defender at the commencement of the case below and for purposes of appeal. We do not, however, believe that the fact that such orders were entered excuses the defendant's failure to affirmatively assert his rights under Section 775.089(6) where he has had full opportunity to do so....

...nt of the restitution instead of apportioning the amount between appellant and a codefendant. Appellant also challenges the trial court's failure to consider his ability to pay. The order of restitution was not objected to at the time of sentencing. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1985) controls the imposition of restitution in criminal cases. As this court noted in Gilmore v. State, 479 So.2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), the 1984 amendment to section 775.089 *699 considerably changed the method of ordering restitution....

...s reasons on the record. As this court held in Gilmore, the 1984 amendment to the statute provides notice to every defendant that restitution shall be imposed, and no further advance notice to the defendant is necessary. Prior to the 1984 amendment, section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1983) provided that the court might order restitution by a defendant "if the defendant is able or will be able to make restitution." Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1985) now provides that the court, in ordering restitution, shall consider the financial resources of the defendant and the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents. However, section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1985) specifically provides that "[T]he burden of demonstrating the financial resources of the defendant and his dependents is on the defendant." The failure of appellant to object in the court below to the order...

...Appellant, relying on Turner v. State, 431 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), also argues that the total amount of restitution due the victim of the crime should have been apportioned between appellant and the coperpetrator of the armed robbery. Neither the present version of section 775.089 or its predecessor imposes any requirement upon the trial court to apportion restitution among codefendants equally guilty of the crime which resulted in the loss to the victim. On the contrary, section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1985) requires the court to order restitution for "damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense." The court in imposing restitution certainly could, if it stated reasons on the record,...

...The facts in this case do not justify such apportionment. It is clear from the language of the current statute that an order of restitution is to be treated in the same way as a judgment in a civil action, and is enforceable by either the state or the victim. § 775.089(5)(10), Fla....

...Remedies involving apportionment of liability between any of the parties involved, including victims and defendants, would be the same as between judgment holders and cojudgment debtors. We cannot discern from a reading of the brief opinion in Turner whether we are in conflict or not. Turner, being based on section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1981), appears to turn on the failure of the appellant there to have notice and an opportunity to be heard on the restitution issue....

...theft. We disagree. We do not believe that our legislature, in enacting the victim restitution statutes, intended to limit the trial court's function in these matters to determining fair market value. Victim restitution is authorized and governed by section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...he following, that the probationer or offender in community control shall: ... . (e) Make reparation or restitution to the aggrieved party for the damage or loss caused by his offense in an amount to be determined by the court... . (emphasis added). Section 775.089(1)(a) refers to this section and requires the trial court to make restitution a condition of probation in accordance with it....

...However, there seems to be no reason to impose upon this type of action the same rigidities of proof that are required in criminal cases. See Norman v. State, 468 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (Nimmons, J., dissenting). The burden of proof, for the purposes of restitution, is a preponderance of the evidence. Section 775.089(7) states: Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence....

...We note in passing that if the 1976 Chevrolet had any salvage value after its sojourn in the bay, the defendant could have presented evidence of it. The defendant's remaining point is that the trial court failed to consider his ability to pay restitution. However, he had the burden of proof on this point. § 775.089(7), Fla....

...Appellant's offense of dealing in stolen property involved some of the items taken in this burglary, but the additional restitution relates to other items which were taken in the burglary and not recovered, and physical damage to property and related expenses. Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes, authorizes restitution "for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense......

...The defendant was found guilty of aggravated battery after mounting a savage attack on the victim with a machete. Included in the sentence meted out by the judge was an order requiring restitution of up to $10,000. We agree that that portion of the sentence ordering restitution was an error and reverse. Pursuant to section 775.089(6), (7), Florida Statutes (1985) the trial court must consider the defendant's financial resources....

...On this appeal from both the convictions and sentences appellant poses seven points for reversal, none of which demonstrates reversible error, in our judgment, except the contention that the trial court erred in imposing restitution without notice *1060 and a fair opportunity to be heard on the question. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1987), in pertinent part, provides: (6) The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the off...

...nt of $110,023.00. We affirm the adjudication of delinquency as to both offenses and the commitment to a level of moderate risk. We affirm the restitution order in part, vacate the order in part, and remand for further proceedings in accordance with section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2004)....

...ctors which it deems appropriate" under Hawthorne, 573 So.2d at 333. No such extenuating factors are apparent in the record on appeal. The State has the burden to demonstrate "the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense." § 775.089(7), Fla....

...He also found that she averaged taking approximately $600 per week and that she had taken a total of $16,800. Based upon these findings, the court ordered the appellant to repay the victims a total of $16,800. This timely appeal followed. Absent reasons not material in this case, section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), requires the trial court to order restitution to the victims of crimes for damages or loss caused directly or indirectly by a defendant's offense. Section 775.089(1)(a) also requires the court to make the payment of restitution a condition of probation in accordance with section 948.03(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1985)....

...State, 452 So.2d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). If the parties cannot agree on the amount of the victims' damages, as in this case, the court must resolve the dispute, and the burden of demonstrating such loss by a preponderance of the evidence is on the state. § 775.089(7), Fla....

...essment ($15), and other costs ($29) expended by the county. We entirely agree with the defendant and strike such provisions from the sentence. First, there was no legal basis on this record for assessing the alleged burglary restitution costs under Section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...The defendant was convicted of dealing in stolen property taken from a burglary, and was not, so far as the record shows, criminally involved in the burglary itself. This being so, it is plain that the damages and losses sustained by the owner in the said burglary were not "caused by the defendant's offense," § 775.089(1), Fla....

...titution. After sorting through the wash, we find that the appellant's position is consistent with the law on restitution as to a number of the items at issue. As to the items enumerated below and for the reasons set forth below, we reverse in part. Section 775.089 provides for restitution "caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense." Fla. Stat. § 775.089(1)(a) (1995)....

...As a result of the accident, he was charged in the Monroe County Court with a violation of section 258.083, Florida Statutes, (1991). [2] In negotiations with the state, he agreed to plead to the charge and to pay court costs and a fine. In addition, he undertook, pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1991), [3] to make restitution in an amount to be determined by the court [4] for the damage to the reef....

...Co. v. Butler, 314 So.2d 567 (Fla. 1975). This is because by any ordinary, dictionary definition and understanding of the words in question, a requirement to make "restitution to the victim for damage or loss caused ... by the defendant's offense," § 775.089(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991), is neither a "fine" nor a "penalty." Simply put, a penalty or fine involves punishment which is not designed to effect compensation for or restoration of the damages caused by a specific act; section 775.089-type "restitution" is....

...There is no reason, moreover, that the carrier should not be liable merely because the damages are assessed in the course of a criminal proceeding. Nothing in the language of the exclusion itself, which surely could have been drawn to do so, sustains such a result. Furthermore, under section 775.089(5), Florida Statutes (1991), [a]n order of restitution may be enforced by the state, or a victim [7] named in the order to receive the restitution, in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action....

...After a jury convicted Butz of aggravated battery and trespassing, the trial court sentenced him to a term of four and one-half years incarceration. Although the court file contained a victim impact statement showing doctor bills exceeding $150,000, the trial court neither ordered restitution pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1989), nor stated its reasons for not so doing....

...da Statutes (1995), of the amount of restitution that the "child and the parent or guardian could reasonably be expected to pay or make." See A.J. v. State, 677 So.2d 935, 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Unlike restitution as part of adult probation, where section 775.089 imposes no duty on the trial court to make affirmative findings of ability to pay before ordering restitution, Schotsch v....

...4th DCA 1996), section 39.054(1)(a)1 provides that the amount of restitution in a juvenile proceeding "may not exceed" the financial capabilities of the offender and the parents. Due to the youth of the offender, Chapter 39 imposes this limitation on the restitution required by section 775.089 Florida Statutes (1995)....

...se items of restitution and of the restitution award as a whole under section 39.054(1)(a)1. FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The criminal restitution statute also broadly defines the type of loss that is compensable through restitution. Section 775.089(1)(c) defines a "victim" as each person who suffers "property damage or loss, monetary expense, or physical injury or death as a direct or indirect result of the defendant's offense or criminal episode." [2] § 775.089(5), Fla....

...even though they embody a penal provision. City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So.2d 38, 40 (Fla. 1971). [19] Small v. Sun Oil Co., 222 So.2d 196, 199 (Fla. 1969). [20] Florida courts are expressly authorized to order a defendant to make restitution, Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1977), and we recently held that under certain circumstances restitution may properly be required as a condition of probation....

...n medical bills and in workmen's compensation claims as a result of the police officer's injury at the hands of appellant. The motion requested the trial court to correct appellant's sentence by requiring appellant to make restitution as mandated by Section 775.089, Florida Statutes....

...ide by the statute requiring restitution to the victim. The *1349 trial court entered an order correcting appellant's sentence and requiring him to pay restitution to the City of Pensacola in the amount of $1,427.15. In 1984, the Legislature amended Section 775.089, Florida Statutes, to require the trial court to order restitution unless reasons exist not to order same. That section now reads, in pertinent part: 775.089 Restitution....

...(4) If a defendant is placed on probation or paroled, any restitution ordered under this section shall be a condition of such probation or parole. The court may revoke probation, and the Parole and Probation Commission may revoke parole, if the defendant fails to comply with such order. §§ 775.089(1)(a), (b), and (4), Fla....

...The intent of Section 948.03(1)(e), Florida Statutes, is further explained in Section 948.032, Florida Statutes, enacted in 1984, follows: 948.032 Condition of probation; restitution. — If a defendant is placed on probation, any restitution ordered under s. 775.089 shall be a condition of such probation....

...The above-quoted statutes must be read in pari materia with Chapter 921, Florida Statutes. In 1984, the Legislature eliminated Section 921.187(9), Florida Statutes, which gave the trial court discretion to require an offender to make restitution pursuant to Section 775.089, Florida Statutes, as an alternative for the disposition of criminal cases. Replacing that section, is Section 921.187(2), which provides: The court shall require an offender to make restitution pursuant to s. 775.089, unless the court finds reasons not to order such restitution as provided in that section....

...s therefor. These statutes reflect clear legislative mandate for imposition of restitution as a part of a sentence. In Gilmore v. State, 479 So.2d 791, *1350 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), the court held: Appellant was sentenced under the 1984 amendment to Section 775.089 which requires the court to order restitution unless it states reasons not to do so. Hence, defendants such as appellant are now on notice that restitution will be considered as a part of every sentencing, and there is no longer any need for advance notice to be given concerning the possibility of restitution. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes, as amended in 1984, requires the court to consider restitution and to make a record of its determination by order or by statement into the record, as a part of every sentencing....

...That order should be reversed and the imposition of restitution vacated. Nothing in the statutory provisions relating to restitution, as amended in 1984, "reflect[s] clear legislative mandate for imposition of restitution as a part of a sentence," as stated in the majority opinion at page 1350. Sections 775.089, 948.03, 948.032, and 921.187, Florida Statutes (1985), cited in the court opinion, leave the imposition of restitution as part of a criminal sentence to the discretion of the trial judge and only require that if full restitution is not ordered, the trial judge shall state on the record the reasons for not doing so. Nor does Gilmore v. State, 479 So.2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), indicate that section 775.089, as amended in 1984, "deprives the *1351 trial court of discretion over restitution and mandates the trial court to require restitution as an essential part of every sentence." The court in that case merely observed that since the 198...

...d should not be required to pay restitution. In Coleman v. State, 651 So.2d 239 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), this court held that a defendant's ability to pay must be considered by the trial court before imposing restitution. However, effective May 8, 1995, section 775.089(6) was amended to provide that financial resources and ability to pay restitution shall be considered at the time of enforcement of a restitution order, rather than at the time restitution is ordered....

...Appellant objected on the ground of relevance, arguing that his conviction for attempted burglary did not substantially connect him to the items taken. We agree. The restitution statute provides that a defendant may be ordered to pay restitution "for damages or loss caused by the defendant's offense." § 775.089(1), Fla....

...Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Kurt L. Barch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant appeals the portion of his sentence for grand theft in which the trial court ordered him to make restitution of $9,921.72 pursuant to Section 775.089, Florida Statutes....

...After appellant pled guilty to grand theft, the court placed him on five years of probation. As a condition of that probation, the trial judge ordered appellant to pay the above-mentioned restitution. We agree with the state that a defendant is not entitled to advance notice before the court imposes restitution under Section 775.089, Florida Statutes. Gilmore v. State, 479 So.2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). However, in the case below, the trial court failed to follow the requirements of Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes, to consider the financial resources of appellant and his dependents....

...sky. Although the petition for certiorari presents a more difficult jurisdictional issue, since we conclude that the trial judge clearly departed from the essential requirements of law as enunciated by the Legislature in enacting sections 772.14 and 775.089(8), Florida Statutes (1991), we also grant the petition for certiorari and direct entry of summary judgment....

...Taborsky was sentenced to one year of house arrest, fifteen years probation and 500 hours of community service. As a condition of Taborsky's probation, the judge expressly prohibited him from using the stolen research for any purpose. The judge further ordered that "pursuant to Florida Statute 775.089(8) [Taborsky] is hereby estopped by his conviction for grand theft in this case from denying the essential allegations of this offense in any subsequent civil proceeding." This court affirmed Taborsky's conviction, sentence and probation conditions in Taborsky v....

...ns all of this research and the right to pursue any claims against Taborsky relating to the research. USF then filed a civil action against Taborsky, seeking to enjoin him from using the protected research under the provisions of sections 772.14 and 775.089(8), which operate to collaterally estop a criminal defendant in a subsequent civil suit from requiring the civil plaintiff to relitigate facts resolved in the earlier criminal action, to obtain a civil injunction that would replicate the crim...

...robation orders. This court's affirmance of the criminal action now precludes Taborsky from raising this purported defense. We conclude that the trial court erred in refusing to grant the requested injunction because we find that sections 772.14 and 775.089(8) apply. The essential allegations of USF's amended and supplemental complaint which we conclude have successfully employed sections 772.14 and 775.089(8) to estop Taborsky from defending against them are as follows: Plaintiff, Board of Regents Of The State Of Florida, acting by and through the University of South Florida ("USF"), sues defendant Petr Taborsky ("Taborsky"), and alleges: 1....

...ate. As we earlier observed, we clearly have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B) to address the denial of USF's request for temporary and permanent injunctive relief. Even without employing sections 772.14 and 775.089(8), this case clearly cries out for injunctive relief as requested by USF....

...USF is not a party to the criminal action and must channel any requests as victim through the state attorney's office. The Legislature recognized this limitation and modified Florida law to afford the victim full recovery as a party in a related civil action. §§ 772.14, 775.089(8)....

...e convicted felon without the long delay and cost associated with civil litigation. Both Congress and the Florida Legislature intended for the victim to apply collateral estoppel so as to conclusively establish facts resolved by the criminal action. Section 775.089(8) provides in pertinent part: "The conviction of a defendant for an offense involving the act giving rise to restitution under this section shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of that offense in any subsequent civil proceeding." Section 775.089(8) is almost identical to the federal Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982....

...In Mandico, first of all, the supreme court found that a contractor's immunity under section 440.11 "is not apparent from a simple reading of the Workers' Compensation Law... ." 605 So.2d at 852. A defendant's estoppel is readily apparent from reading sections 772.14 and section 775.089(8)....

...Even more persuasive is the Mandico court's holding that "[t]he assertion that the plaintiff's exclusive remedy is under the workers' compensation law is an affirmative defense, and its validity can only be determined in the course of litigation." The remedy of collateral estoppel provided for a victim in sections 772.14 and 775.089(8) is not in the nature of an affirmative defense but, on the contrary, provides that the defendant cannot defend. At best, any such attempted defense should be subject to a motion to strike and then a motion for summary judgment. The very intent of the Legislature in enacting sections 772.14 and 775.089(8) is to relieve a victim from the added expense, time and mental anguish of a second trial....

...rom Judge Sawaya's article as follows: In 1984, the Florida legislature also recognized the need to alleviate the victim's burden of establishing the convicted criminal's liability in a subsequent civil suit for damages, and enacted Florida Statutes section 775.089(8)....

...to victims by defendants, most victims are never fully or even partially compensated by defendants for their injuries and other losses." In response to Florida's concern for the plight of crime victims, the legislature also enacted Florida Statutes section 775.089(8)....

...bstantial change in Florida law that will have a major impact on the victim's ability to recover damages against convicted criminal defendants without the long delays usually associated with such civil proceedings. ... . By enacting Florida Statutes section 775.089(8), the legislature did what the courts have long been reluctant to do....

...As a special condition of probation, the trial court ordered Mr. Taborsky to pay restitution. Mr. Taborsky has appealed that revocation and the sentence imposed. I agree with the majority's decision not to impose an injunction requiring the assignment of the patent. Sections 772.14 and 775.089(8) cannot give estoppel effect to the conditions in a judge's order of probation....

...oss, but it would not result in the requisite "irreparable harm." See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 1987). If I were convinced that a trial court had no discretion but to grant a specific order under either sections 772.14 and 775.089(8), I would prefer to require entry of the order as a matter of mandamus....

...asserts that the trial court was without authority on July 10, 1996, to order the $1060 restitution payment and the district court affirmance was error. We disagree. This Court in State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993), interpreted the language of subsection 775.089(1)(a) [4] as it relates to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) [5] and held that if a trial court orders restitution within sixty days following sentencing it can set the amount at a later date: Subsection 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), provides that "the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for damage or loss caused directly by the defendant's offense." Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) provides...

...We hold, however, that an order of restitution must be imposed at the time of sentencing or within sixty days thereafter. If an order of restitution has been entered in a timely manner, a court can determine the amount of restitution beyond the sixty-day period. Sanderson, 625 So.2d at 472-73. [6] A prime concern underlying section 775.089 is twofold: to give the perpetrator of a crime an opportunity to make amends, and to make the victim of a crime whole again—to the extent it is possible to do so....

...onfirmed at the March hearing, and the amount was finalized in July. The disposition of this issue at the February and March hearings was sufficient to constitute an initial order of restitution under Sanderson, thus giving the court authority under section 775.089 and rule 3.800(c) to set the amount in July....

...In fact, it was the defendant himself who suggested that the court "reserve jurisdiction" to consider the issue—the very procedure he complains of here. Moreover, the statute makes the award of restitution mandatory unless the trial court finds clear and compelling reasons not to do so. See § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...1st DCA 1993); and King v. State, 611 So.2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). [2] The restitution hearing was scheduled and postponed on April 11, 1996; May 24, 1996; and June 17, 1996. [3] See T.W.L., 684 So.2d at 844-45; Campbell, 614 So.2d at 602; King, 611 So.2d at 25-26. [4] Section 775.089 states in pertinent part: 775.089 Restitution.— (1)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1. Damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense; and 2. Damage or loss related to the defendant's criminal episode, unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...t part: (c) Reduction and Modification. A court may reduce or modify to include any of the provisions of chapter 948, Florida Statutes, a legal sentence imposed by it within 60 days after such imposition.... [6] We note that L.O. does not argue that section 775.089 requires that the order of restitution be reduced to writing. See § 775.089, Fla....

...Although adjudication of guilt was withheld, Smith was placed on probation and ordered to pay restitution. In this civil action for damages which followed the criminal trial, the trial court entered a partial summary judgment determining liability of Smith based on section 775.089(8), Florida Statutes (1989) which provides: (8) The conviction of a defendant for an offense involving the act giving rise to restitution under this section shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of that offense in any subsequent civil proceeding....

...2d DCA 1976) (holding that the absence of an adjudication does not prevent the conviction from being considered in a habitual offender proceeding). We hold that one who pleads guilty or is found guilty by a jury has been "convicted" under the provisions of section 775.089(8) even in the absence of an adjudication....

...iate for one who commits a burglary at night in an occupied dwelling. The penalty there is fifteen years imprisonment and ten thousand dollars fine. That would be appropriate because that is what the state says is the evidence in the case. NOTES [1] Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part: In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...Also at the hearing below, the court deferred monthly payment of restitution until the child finishes school or turns 18. The court properly overruled I.M.'s objection that restitution should not be imposed at all, because the child did not have the ability to pay. Under section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (2005), the defendant's ability to pay must be determined at the time the restitution order is being enforced, not when it is imposed....

...A & E instituted the chapter 727 proceeding, it is a lien that attaches to estate funds. The County also argues that a restitution obligation is not subject to discharge by any statutory or common-law proceeding for relief against creditors, citing section 775.089(10)(b), Florida Statutes (2000); that the restitution lien act supercedes all contrary law and is controlling over any conflicting law; and that public policy dictates that criminals should not be able to avoid paying restitution by instituting proceedings for relief against creditors....

...exus" between the juvenile's offenses and the victim's loss. For the reasons we will explain, we conclude that the reasoning of G.C. does not apply to the circumstances presented by the instant case. The general statute governing restitution awards, section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2006), [1] provides in part: (1)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...occurred. Lowe and another witness testified that T.J.N. was not fighting with Matt Lucia on the right side of the truck. Therefore, the State did not prove that the right-side damage was caused by the batteries for which T.J.N. was adjudicated. See § 775.089(1)(a)(1) (providing for restitution for "[d]amage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense"). The State did, however, prove that the damage was related to T.J.N.'s criminal episode. See § 775.089(1)(a)(2) (providing for restitution for "[d]amage or loss related to the defendant's criminal episode")....

...We agree that it was error to include the costs of investigation in the restitution order. Although the restitution statute contemplates payment of restitution "to the victim for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense," see § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...Williams, 520 So.2d at 277 (appellant's offense of leaving the scene of an accident did not cause the damages incurred by the victim). Although we agree that restitution cannot be ordered for the investigative costs, we reject appellant's challenge to payment of interest. There is no express provision in section 775.089 for interest on restitution....

...PER CURIAM. Appellant appeals from the trial court's order requiring him to pay $1,500 restitution and from the costs assessed against him. Appellant was tried by jury and convicted of second degree murder. The court entered judgment and pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1985), ordered appellant to pay $1,500 restitution to the victim's next-of-kin for the losses the victim sustained as a result of appellant's offense....

...ce company is subrogated to the rights of the victim. Secondly, appellant argues that the court erred in imposing restitution without prior determination as to appellant's ability to pay and consideration of other enumerated criteria, as required by section 775.089(6)....

...Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee. COBB, Judge. The appellant, Thomas Butts, has alleged on appeal that the imposition of restitution, without a concomitant determination of ability to pay, was reversible error. In the past, this court has held that section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1989), requires a sentencing judge to determine a defendant's ability to pay prior to ordering a defendant to make restitution. Leyba v. State, 520 So.2d 705 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Section 775.089(6) reads: (6) The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense, the financial resources of the defendant, the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents and such other factors which it deems appropriate. Section 775.089(7) reads in pertinent part: (7) ......

...2d DCA 1990); Abbott v. State, 543 So.2d 411, 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Hamrick v. State, 532 So.2d 71, 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Morgan v. State, 491 So.2d 326, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In short, a defendant must affirmatively assert his rights under section 775.089(6), when he is given the opportunity to do so....

...sonable amount or manner to be determined by the court." While this particular statutory provision does not appear to have been expressly construed, we have for guidance the decisions relating to the similarly worded counterpart for adult offenders, Section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1981), which allows a court to order a "defendant to make restitution to the aggrieved party for damage or loss caused by the defendant's offense, if the defendant is able or will be able to make such restitution." In a long line of cases, the Florida courts have held that a condition of restitution cannot require payment in excess of the amount of damage the criminal conduct caused the victim under the aegis of Section 775.089(1)....

...t the procedural requirements of Jenkins v. State . We note that section 27.3455 has been amended effective October 1, 1986. Ch. 86-154, § 1, Laws of Fla. With regard to restitution, we find that the trial judge failed to follow the requirements of section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1985)....

...the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense, the financial resources of the defendant, the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents, and such other factors which he deems appropriate. We point out that section 775.089(3), Florida Statutes (1985), permits the trial judge to require that the defendant make restitution in specified installments or within a specified period, so long as the last installment or the end of the period is not later than fiv...

...defendant had no opportunity to object to the amount or terms of payment of the restitution ordered. Accordingly, on remand the trial judge is directed to hold a hearing, with notice to the defendant, for the determination of the matters required by section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1985)....

...dvance notice (other than that provided by the statute) is necessary for the imposition of restitution and that a defendant has the burden of objecting in the trial court to the amount of restitution and of demonstrating his financial circumstances. § 775.089(7); Spivey v....

...Accordingly, we vacate the restitution order and remand for the imposition of restitution to be determined by the trial court. On remand, the state will have the burden of demonstrating the amount of loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense in accordance with section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1985)....

...We affirm the trial court's order and hold that, under the facts of this case, the trial court properly relied upon the victim's retail price to measure the victim's "damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense" for purposes of section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...es. The defendant argues that the trial court, by awarding retail value, awarded the victim either lost profits or consequential damages arising out of the theft. He argues that the undefined "damage or loss" for which restitution is permitted under section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), does not include such remote losses....

...r indirectly by the defendant's offense. However, it must be remembered that those cases involved offenses occurring prior to October 1, 1993, the effective date of Chapter 93-37, Section 1 at 198, 206, Laws of Florida, which amended Florida Statute section 775.089(1)(a) by adding the italized language below: In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...caused by defendant's offense and the loss or damage related to defendant's criminal episode. Although restitution in this case was under section 39.054(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1995), it is treated the same as restitution in adult proceedings under section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...In response to the court's question regarding how he knew how many apartments were rented, the landlord stated that Delks sent him monthly reports. However, the landlord did not have these reports with him at the restitution hearing. Delks objected to the testimony regarding these reports. Section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1991) places the burden of demonstrating the amount of loss on the state....

...The lower court did not err in rejecting the setoff claim. [1] Bain also complains about the amount of restitution ordered. After hearing evidence on the amount of the loss, Bain's present and future ability to pay, and related matters as set out in section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1993), the lower court found Bain had the present and future ability to pay restitution in the amount ordered....

...the amount of $498,814.61 or anywhere close to it. The question is whether the lower court could properly assess such an amount as restitution in the face of Bain's testimony that she is penniless and unemployed. There is little doubt what sections 775.089(6) and (7), Florida Statutes say; the question bedeviling this panel is what they mean in practical application: Restitution....

...lity. Therrien v. State, 637 So.2d 288 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The legislature has expressed its intent that, in addition to any punishment, restitution of losses caused by the crime should be made to the victim, absent compelling reasons not to do so. § 775.089, Fla....

...No evidence was presented to rebut this testimony. In my view, the evidence in this record is insufficient to support the trial judge's finding that Bain has the future ability to earn more than a modest amount of money even though she had the burden of proof on this issue. § 775.089(7)....

...To find that Bain has a future ability to pay $500,000.00, under these circumstances, ignores the statutory mandate in favor of an "anything goes" attitude. One can always win the Florida lottery and therefore any sum awarded for restitution must be affirmed. Subsections 775.089(1) and (6) provide that restitution shall be ordered only when the trial judge finds that the defendant has *582 the present and future ability to pay it....

...Dinkel $815 without accrued interest for his direct loss. He merely argues that Mr. Dinkel's attorneys' fees were caused by the sheriff's decision to file an interpleader action, rather than by his crime of dealing in stolen property. We disagree. Absent clear and compelling reasons, section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1985), requires the trial court to order the defendant to make restitution for damage or loss "caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense." Before this statute was amended to permit recovery for los...

...Stat. (1989). Since this case does not involve these intentional torts, I will not address them. It is interesting to note, however, that the victim of a criminal assault is probably entitled to restitution even if this section provides tort immunity. Section 775.089, Fla....

...Finally, we turn to Johnson's last issue—that restitution was imposed without the presentation of evidence, a hearing, or a waiver of these requirements. The standard of review of a restitution order is abuse of discretion. State v. Hawthorne, 573 So.2d 330, 333 (Fla.1991). Section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (2004), in pertinent part provides: Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved *417 by the court by the preponderance of the evidence....

...Johnson never objected to restitution before or at sentencing. He first raised the issue some eight months later in his motion to correct sentencing error. In that motion, Johnson argued only that the State failed to comply with the statutory hearing requirement. § 775.089(7)....

...the theft occurred, noting that it had no testimony as to salvage value. Thus the court ordered $6,000 in restitution. Trial courts are generally required to order a defendant to make restitution for damage or loss caused by the defendant's offense. § 775.089, Fla. Stat. (1999). The state attorney has the burden of proving the loss sustained by the victim by a preponderance of the evidence rather than to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt. § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (1999); Fisher v. State, 722 So.2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); J.O.S. v. State, 668 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), approved, 689 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1997). The primary objectives of restitution awards pursuant to section 775.089 are to give the criminal defendant an opportunity to make amends and to make the victim of a crime whole, at least to the extent it is possible to do so....

...Accordingly, the State concluded that the restitution award should be reduced to $43,634.28. [2] Because the trial court failed to timely rule on the State's Motion to Correct Sentence, the motion was deemed denied and this *562 appeal ensued. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2). The restitution statute, section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2002), provides in pertinent part: In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...788,880, the amount attributable to the nineteen boxes not charged in the information. Any loss of cable service revenue stemming from Bernard's criminal episode with the single cable box charged in the information arguably falls within the scope of section 775.089(1)(a)2....

...Appellant was also ordered to make $1,800 restitution to the victim of his crimes. [1] For reversal of this order, appellant cites Harris v. State, 452 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), in which this court held that before restitution may be imposed as part of a sentence pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1983), the defendant must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. We note, however, that Harris was decided under the 1983 statute in which the determination to order restitution rested within the discretion of the court. Appellant was sentenced under the 1984 amendment to section 775.089 which requires the court to order restitution unless it states reasons not to do so....

...However, defense counsel promptly objected to the amounts claimed, contending that the amounts reflected the replacement costs, not the fair market value at the time of the loss. Once Molter objected to the amount of restitution, the trial court was required to hear evidence on the matter. § 775.089(7), Fla....

...f items that Molter admitted stealing from the Bennetts. To affirm an order of restitution, there must be record evidence sufficient to support a finding that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence the amount of restitution ordered. See § 775.089(7); Bass v....

...Daniels, Public Defender, Chrysa M. Iler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Charles T. Faircloth, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. PER CURIAM. Marvin Smith appeals three restitution orders entered against him by the trial court pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...tions the responsibility to determine an amount for regular payments to the aggrieved party is ineffectual and must be stricken. Williams v. State, 556 So.2d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). On remand the trial court may adopt a payment schedule pursuant to section 775.089(3), Florida Statutes (1987), and if it chooses to do so, may solicit and obtain recommendations from Smith's probation officer....

...(3)(a) The court may require that the defendant make restitution under this section within a specified period or in specified installments. [2] The trial court is not required to establish a payment schedule, and should no schedule be established, "restitution must be made immediately." Section 775.089(3)(c), Fla....

...ting a burglary. Williams v. State, 517 So.2d 681 (Fla. 1988), disapproving State v. Pilcher, 443 So.2d 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). The sentencing judge ordered appellant to make restitution without first determining his ability to do so as required by Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1985)....

...ictim for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense, unless it finds reasons not to order such restitution... . The *237 court shall make the payment of restitution a condition to probation in accordance with s. 948.03. § 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987) (emphasis supplied)....

...The personal representative then filed for summary judgment against both Rodriguez and the car dealer arguing that Rodriguez was estopped from denying the essential allegations of the offense of vehicular manslaughter in the civil action based on Florida's restitution statute, § 775.089(8), Fla....

...d movement of his vehicle for which he was not responsible caused the accident, and that this testimony created a genuine issue of material fact precluding the entry of a final summary judgment against it. After a hearing, the trial court ruled that section 775.089(8) applied to Rodriguez, precluding Rodriguez from disputing liability for the subject accident, but reserved ruling on the vicarious liability of Sun Chevrolet....

...After additional memoranda were filed on that issue, the representative again moved for summary judgment, arguing that Sun Chevrolet was *107 vicariously liable for the negligent acts of Rodriguez under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, and that section 775.089(8) prohibited Sun Chevrolet from refuting liability....

...Since a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the accident which caused the decedent's death was the result of Rodriguez's negligence, the trial court's order granting summary judgment based on the dangerous instrumentality doctrine must be reversed. Neither may section 775.089(8) serve as a basis for the summary judgment....

...Bartlett, 570 So.2d 360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), review denied, 581 So.2d 1310 (Fla. 1991); Paterno v. Fernandez, 569 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), review denied, 581 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 1991). Because Rodriguez entered a plea of guilty in the criminal action against him, under section 775.089(8), he was estopped from denying the essential allegations of the offense of vehicular homicide in the instant civil proceeding....

...Nothing in the record indicates that the agreed sum at the time of the stipulation was less than full restitution or, if less, that the circumstances of the defendant changed from the time of the stipulation to warrant his paying more restitution. The provisions of sections 775.089(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), and 948.03(e), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...1990), require detailed explanation on the record by the trial judge for ordering less than full restitution. Absent such an explanation it is presumed that the stipulation accommodated the statutory mandate. Any further entitlement to recovery by the victim is contemplated by section 775.089(8), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...Aside from the problem that incorrect information [1] was supplied by the state to the judge at the restitution hearing, a successor judge may not enter an order or judgment based upon evidence heard by the predecessor. Beattie v. Beattie, 536 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Section 775.089, Florida Statutes, 1989, is the general statute that requires restitution to victims. Its provisions are mandatory and places the onus upon the court to order the defendant to repay the victim for crimes. § 775.089(1)(a). If a court does not order restitution, section 775.089(1)(b) requires a court to state on the record in detail the reasons for noncompliance with the statute....

...irective. Florida Bar News, Vol. 18, No. 24, p. 15, Dec. 15, 1991. However, the onus of the legislative mandate is shared by the state since it has the burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by the victim as a result of an offense. § 775.089(7)....

...However, we reverse the order imposing costs against appellant and ordering him to make restitution. The trial court failed to consider the financial resources of the appellant, the financial needs and earning ability of the appellant and his dependents, and other such factors pursuant to Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1985), before ordering him to pay restitution....

...continues to argue that restitution must be based on the fair market value of the stolen property. We disagree. Rather than prescribing a method for determining restitution, the legislature has given discretion to the courts in making these awards. See § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...l amount of restitution, or to apportion restitution in any appropriate manner. Id. at 967. Rather, we find the facts in this case analogous to those considered by this court in Peters v. State, 555 So.2d 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). In Peters, we said: Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...Subsection (7) places the burden of establishing victims' losses on the state. Id. at 451. In Peters, this court reversed the order of restitution concluding in part that the state failed to show Peters fenced all of the goods stolen from the victim. Id. Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1991), provides: The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense, the financial...

...First, no notice was given to the appellant of the hearing. See Burch v. State, 617 So.2d 846, 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). No evidence was presented on the issues. Nothing in the transcript of the hearing where restitution was imposed reveals that the trial court considered the matters required in section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...stitution "in a reasonable amount or manner to be determined by the court." [3] This statute does not delineate who bears the burden of proof on the issues involved, but this court has previously looked to the general restitution statute for adults, § 775.089, Fla. Stat. (2006), to determine issues related to juvenile restitution that are not specifically addressed in the juvenile statute. See T.J.N. v. State, 977 So.2d 770, 771 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Section 775.089(7) provides that the court must determine restitution based upon a preponderance of the evidence, with the burden of demonstrating the amount of the restitution resting on the State but the burden of proving any inability to pay resting with the defendant. [4] If competent, substantial evidence supports the amount of the restitution award, we review the amount and any payment schedule under an abuse of discretion standard. J.D.H. v. State, 931 So.2d 241, 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Notably, although section 775.089(6) previously required a court ordering restitution in an adult case to consider both the losses sustained by the victim and the defendant's financial resources and needs in setting the amount, see § 775.089(6), Fla. Stat. (1993), subsections 775.089(6)(a) and (b) now require the court to consider only the amount of the loss sustained by the victim....

...hedule based upon what the adult may reasonably afford or reasonably be expected to afford, even if the adult is unemployed. See, e.g., Bain v. State, 642 So.2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Indeed, the opinion in Bain was based upon the prior version of section 775.089(6), which required the court to consider the defendant's financial resources when setting the amount, as the current juvenile statute requires....

...Restitution must be proved by substantial, competent evidence and this evidence must be greater than mere speculation. Id. (citations omitted). “A victim’s testimony, without documentation, is not enough to support an award of restitution.” Id. (citations omitted). Section 775.089, Florida Statutes, permits a trial court to order a defendant to make restitution for damages or losses caused by the defendant’s offense. § 775.089(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). The state bears the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence the loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense. § 775.089(7), Fla....

...Subsequently, without notice or a hearing, the trial court ordered Burch to pay restitution in the amount of $500 to a victim of the robbery, $1,200 to another victim and $1,114 to State Farm Insurance. We reverse and remand the order of restitution because the trial court failed to consider the factors set out in section 775.089(6) and (7), Fla....

...1991) (absent proof of a violation, the court cannot change an order of probation by enhancing the terms thereof). We also see no objection to requiring the restitution to be paid to the health-care providers who treated the victim injured by Gladfelter's driving. Section 775.089(2), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that where an offense has resulted in bodily injury to a victim, a restitution order should be entered requiring the defendant to pay the costs of necessary medical and related services....

...He solicited their assistance to have the Grossmans killed so that he would avoid paying child support, regain custody of his children, and receive $1 million from a life insurance policy. Restitution Because the trial court's order of restitution as to the cost of medical insurance was contemplated and permitted by section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2007), we affirm....

...License there is no nexus between the criminal act and the injury suffered. This timely appeal follows. The state argues that the trial judge should have ordered restitution arising from Schuette's conviction of driving with a suspended license. [1] Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1999), provides, (1)(a)In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1. Damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense; and 2. Damage or loss related to the defendant's criminal episode, unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution. § 775.089(1)(a)1., 2., Fla....

...because the fact that the driver's *937 license was suspended was not causally related to the crash. See Ochoa v. State, 596 So.2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Stewart v. State, 571 So.2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). However, in 1993, the legislature amended section 775.089 to add section 775.089(1)(a)2....

...point upon which the majority has now affirmed. Also, I would acknowledge express and direct court conflict between our decision in this case and numerous other decisions on the question of whether a county may be a "victim" as that term is used in section 775.089, Florida Statutes....

...evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction for second degree murder. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of guilt. However, we disapprove of that part of the sentence which requires the defendant to pay restitution, attorney fees, and costs. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1983), authorizes a court to impose restitution as part of a sentence....

...a condition of probation. Our supreme court has interpreted the latter section as requiring notice and hearing before restitution may be ordered. Fresneda v. State, 347 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 1977). We believe the same interpretation should be applied to section 775.089. Accordingly, we hold that before restitution may be imposed as part of a sentence pursuant to section 775.089, the defendant must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard....

...Section 948.03(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1977), expressly provides that restitution may be made a condition of probation. [1] In imposing restitution, however, a court is required to consider a defendant's financial resources and the burden that payment will impose upon him. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...His counsel protested, contending that Reeves was indigent and unable to make restitution. The trial court's determination to proceed without notice and over defendant's objection deprived Reeves of full consideration by the court of the factors contemplated by Section 775.089....

...The answer is no. See Leyba v. State, 520 So.2d 705 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Based on the defendant's potential future financial resources, the trial court could have required such restitution within a specified period or in specified installments. See § 775.089(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991). Only the trial court, not the probation officer, can set up a payment schedule. See § 775.089(3)(c)....

...This authority cannot be delegated to a probation officer. Ashe v. State, 582 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). REVERSED and REMANDED for establishment by the trial court of a later specified payment date or an installment payment schedule. W. SHARP and PETERSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 775.089(3)(c) provides that restitution orders, unless otherwise provided by the court, are payable immediately.

...Cheatham is going to be able to afford to pay that money back, Your Honor. The court stated: "We'll see," and no further comment concerning restitution was made on the record. Appellant now argues that the trial court erred in failing to comply with section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1989), in that it did not determine appellant's financial resources, his present and potential future financial needs, and his earning ability. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1989), provides in pertinent part: (1)(a) 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 clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution....

...resources of the defendant and the financial needs of the defendant and his dependents is on the defendant. The burden of demonstrating such other matters as the court deems appropriate is upon the party designated by the court as justice requires. Section 775.089(1)(a) mandates the imposition of restitution, unless the trial court finds clear and compelling reasons not to order restitution. Section 775.089(6) requires that a trial court consider the extent of loss sustained by any victim, as well as the financial circumstances of the defendant and his dependents. Section 775.089(7) places upon the state the burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained, and upon the defendant, the burden of demonstrating his financial circumstances....

...endant's ability to pay restitution, albeit limited in scope. We are unwilling to impose the requirement on a trial court that it consider the several factors enumerated in the statute in any specified degree of detail. This is especially true where section 775.089(1)(a) makes the imposition of restitution mandatory, and section 775.089(7) places upon the defendant the burden of demonstrating clear and compelling reasons not to order restitution....

...hough given an opportunity by the trial court. We find the statement made by appellant's counsel ("Boy, I don't know if Mr. Cheatham is going to be able to afford to pay that money back, Your Honor.") insufficient to satisfy appellant's burden under section 775.089(7)....

...ncing. On appeal, Bolling first argues that it was reversible error for the trial court to impose restitution without considering his present means and future ability to pay. We find no merit in this argument based upon the applicable statute. Under section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes, a trial court shall order a defendant to pay restitution to crime victims absent clear and compelling reasons not to so order. Section 775.089(7), places upon the state the burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained, and upon the defendant the burden of demonstrating his financial circumstances....

...and present evidence of his inability to pay at the time restitution is ordered. Otherwise, the issue of failure to determine ability to pay will be deemed waived. The court declared, "In short, a defendant must affirmatively assert his rights under section 775.089(6) [now subsection (7)], when he is given the opportunity to do so." 575 So.2d at 1379....

...raising an exception to the imposition of restitution. Counsel instead should have presented evidence as to his client's inability to pay when given the opportunity to do so. See e.g., Cheatham. Having failed to affirmatively assert his rights under section 775.089(7), the defendant has waived the issue of ability to pay....

...State, 589 So.2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The restitution order must be remanded with directions to strike this language. On remand, if the trial court determines that payment of restitution in installments is appropriate, it must establish the schedule itself. See § 775.089(3), Fla....

...They later challenged the order on grounds it could not exceed the value assigned to their offense, but the district court rejected this argument. Hebert, 600 So.2d at 1294-95. The applicable statute limits restitution to "damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense." § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...ined in a civil trial without objection, a civil litigant would have no remedy on appeal. There is no reason to give a criminal defendant more rights regarding restitution than a civil litigant. AFFIRMED. COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] See § 775.089(5), Fla....

...Appellant was ultimately sentenced to seven years imprisonment to be followed by seven years probation. As one of the conditions of his probation he was ordered to pay restitution to the Dawses in the amount of $328 and to their insurance carrier, Hartford Insurance Company, in the amount of $512. Section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1983) provides that a court may order a defendant to make restitution to the aggrieved party "for damages or loss caused by the defendant's offense." (emphasis supplied) Appellant argues on appeal, as he did befo...

...idence was sufficient and affirm the conviction. As it is undisputed that the restitution orders were entered without an opportunity for defendant to be heard, the restitution order is vacated and remanded for a hearing pursuant to the provisions of section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1987). See Howren v. State, 510 So.2d 1142, 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). 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....

...In so doing, the defendant left the seriously wounded victim to fend for himself. He survived, but with permanent injuries. The statute does permit the assessment of restitution for damages caused indirectly, as well as directly, by defendant's offense. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...to determine the proper amount of restitution the appellant should be ordered to pay. We do not direct the trial court to apportion restitution between the appellant and his companion because the factual circumstances of this case do not justify it. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1985), does not require the trial court to apportion restitution among defendants equally guilty of the crime which resulted in the loss to the victim....

...appellant's confessed knowledge that the Buick was stolen. Therefore, we must reverse the denial of the motion to suppress, reverse the adjudication of conviction, and remand for further proceedings. As a final point on appeal, appellant argues that section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), the statute governing restitution, [6] requires a determination that the defendant caused the damages before the defendant can be ordered to pay restitution....

...f section 812.014 as applied to the facts of this case. [5] The tape recording of the interview was present at the hearing, but not put in evidence. A typewritten transcript of a portion thereof is incorporated in appellant's motion to suppress. [6] Section 775.089(1)(a) provides: 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 suc...

...spended, the accident would not have happened and that the driving while the license was suspended was a contributing cause to the accident. Restitution may be imposed only for damages that are caused directly or indirectly by a defendant's offense, section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...The trial court also ordered the appellant to pay an unspecified amount of restitution to the victim's natural father. Although the appellant urges that restitution was imposed without affording him notice and an opportunity to be heard the court committed no error. Section 775.089 was amended in 1984 to require the court to order restitution unless it states reasons not to do so....

...to appeal issue of whether trial court erred in ordering restitution for value of items stolen from victim's house, on the basis that he was only convicted of stealing the victim's automobile, by failing to raise contemporaneous objection); see also § 775.089, Fla....

...and that the order must be stricken because it is an illegal order since it is ordered to be paid to the Sheriff's Department and police agencies do not meet the statutory definition of "victim." See Knaus v. State, 638 So.2d 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); § 775.089(1), Fla.Stat....

...restitution to the victim for: 1. Damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense; and 2. Damage or loss related to the defendant's criminal episode, unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...hat the defendant: 1. Pay the cost of necessary medical and related professional services and devices relating to physical, psychiatric, and psychological care. . . . 2. Pay the cost of necessary physical and occupational therapy and rehabilitation. § 775.089(2)(a). "The burden of proving the amount of restitution is on the State, and the amount must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence." Koile v. State, 902 So.2d 822, 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); see also § 775.089(7)....

...ly connected to the offense and [ (2) ] bears a significant relationship to the offense. Further, under the statute, the State must establish these factors by a preponderance of the evidence. Glaubius v. State, 688 So.2d 913, 915 (Fla. 1997) (citing § 775.089(7))....

...ent of reasonable foreseeability. Schuette v. State, 822 So.2d 1275, 1281-82 (Fla.2002) (citing Arling v. State, 559 So.2d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)). The court in Schuette made it clear that, notwithstanding the relatively open-ended wording of section 775.089(1)(a)(2)—"[d]amage or loss related to the defendant's criminal episode"—added in 1993, [1] the specific two-element causation test recited in Glaubius still applies....

...Whether one agrees with the cases is not determinative of whether they must be adhered to. The order must be quashed. ORDER QUASHED. THOMPSON, J., concurs. W. SHARP, J., dissents with opinion. W. SHARP, Judge, dissenting. I would affirm the order of restitution in this case pursuant to section 775.089(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes (1995). The loss or damage to the victim's vehicle clearly was "related to" the defendant's criminal episode. Section 775.089 governs restitution in criminal cases. This section had previously required the trial court to order the defendant to make restitution to the victim only for "damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense." See, e.g., § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...The Florida Supreme Court interpreted this provision to mean that the trial court must find that the loss or damage was causally connected to the offense and bore a significant relationship to the offense. See Glaubius v. State, 688 So.2d 913 (Fla.1997); State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988). However, in 1993, section 775.089 was significantly amended to include an additional *732 restitutionary obligation....

...mpkins and Sheriff. [1] Ebaugh first argues that the imposition of 10% interest on the unpaid restitution due to Simpkins and Sheriff was illegal because the imposition of interest was not authorized by statute. More specifically, Ebaugh argues that section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), does not provide for the imposition of interest and that the statute should be strictly construed in his favor. In determining legislative intent, the court must view the entire statute under consideration and must give effect to every part of the statute. State v. Rodriquez, 365 So.2d 157, 159 (Fla. 1978). Section 775.089 provides in pertinent part: 775.089 Restitution....

...When the court orders the income deduction, the court shall furnish to the defendant a statement of his rights, remedies, and duties in regard to the income deduction order. The statement shall state: a. All fees or interest which shall be imposed. * * * * * * § 775.089, Fla. Stat. (1991) (emphasis added). Paragraph (1)(a) of section 775.089 must be read in pari materia with paragraphs (6) and (12)(a)1 and 4 of the statute because statutes which relate to the same or to a closely related subject or object are regarded in pari materia and should be construed and compared with each other....

...State, 595 So.2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 601 So.2d 553 (Fla. 1992), which held that, since the defendant had offered to pay interest on the restitution ordered, the defendant was precluded from asserting any error in this regard. The court commented that section 775.089 contains no express provision for interest; however, this statement constitutes obiter dictum without analysis of the statute and its various provisions....

...Accordingly, when Furches petitioned for a restitution lien following Bunch's conviction, and supported his claim with competent evidence of damages, the trial court properly entered the civil restitution lien. AFFIRMED. ANTOON, C.J., and COBB, J., concur. NOTES [1] § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...[10] Accordingly, summary judgment in the County's favor on the retaliation claim is warranted. G. Miami-Dade County's Counterclaims for Conversion and Civil Theft Miami-Dade County alleges it is entitled to summary judgment on its conversion and civil theft counterclaims. [11] Section 775.089(8), Florida Statutes, provides: The conviction of a defendant for an offense involving the act giving rise to restitution under this section shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of that offense in any subsequent civil proceeding....

...2d DCA 1987); Carroll v. State, 459 So.2d 368 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). While we have on several occasions held that the trial judge may not delegate his duty to determine the amount of restitution that is proper to impose upon a convicted defendant pursuant to section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1985) ( see McClure v....

...Unlike the appellant in Mansell, appellant here makes no effort to demonstrate as improper the restitution amounts that the trial court found were required by the presentence investigation report. Appellant only challenges the method used to make the determination. Section 775.089 does not specify the type or quantum of evidence needed to determine restitution....

...Sentencing Issues We find that the state offered adequate proof of appellant's previous conviction and release from prison. We reverse the restitution order because the trial court abused its discretion by not holding a restitution hearing before ordering appellant to pay restitution. Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), requires that a court "order the defendant to make restitution to the victim . . . unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to." "Subsections 775.089(6) and (7) require a hearing[, before restitution is imposed,] to determine both the defendant's ability to pay and the amount owed." Exilorme v....

...At sentencing, the trial court broached the issue abruptly, segueing from argument on the length of incarceration to restitution. Appellant timely objected to a restitution award without a hearing. Additionally, the trial court did not consider appellant's financial resources or ability to pay. See § 775.089(6)(b), Fla....

...510 to which the victim *874 specifically testified during the hearing. We agree. When the amount of restitution is disputed, the State has the burden of proof at the restitution hearing, but is held only to a preponderance of the evidence standard. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat....

...pant of the vehicle struck by the car struck by Triplett's vehicle. In sentencing Triplett for leaving the scene, the court imposed restitution for personal injury and property damages sustained in the collision. [1] In 1993, the legislature amended section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes, to require restitution for: "1....

...State, 700 So.2d 731 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). HARRIS, Judge, concurring specially. There is a difference, a material difference I believe, between the words "caused ... by the defendant's offense" and "related to the defendant's criminal episode." I do not believe that section 775.089(1)(a)2 was added to further limit the victim's right to restitution; *109 I believe it was added to extend the right of restitution to those victims whose injuries, although not caused by the defendant's offense at conviction, are nevertheless caused by the defendant's conduct leading up to the offense at conviction. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes, was amended in 1993....

...similar conduct by the defendant. I recognize the holding of J.O.S. v. State, 689 So.2d 1061, 1065 (Fla.1997): Furthermore, consistent with our decision in Williams, we likewise apply the "significant relationship" test to criminal defendants under section 775.089(1)(a) which requires a court to order a defendant to make restitution for damage or loss "caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense" and "related to the defendant's criminal episode." While this quotation appears to con...

...rida Statutes) which permits restitution only "for any damage or loss caused by the child's offense...." The court did not expressly consider whether the legislature intended that the conjunction "and" used between subsections 1 and 2 of the amended section 775.089(1)(a) should mean "or." See Byte International Corp....

...My response to the suggestion that this certification is frivolous and that it may incur the wrath of the supreme court and provoke its revenge is, "hogwash." While recognizing that the supreme court may have indicated in Glaubius [1] and J.O.S [2] , that although the legislature amended section 775.089, Florida Statutes, it did not change it, the question we pose here is whether the court would have so found if it had considered the arguments made in the State's motion for certification....

...t attorney's fees should be assessed against appellant in accordance with section 27.56. Fourth, appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing restitution as a condition of his probation without regard to his ability to pay, as required by section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1985)....

...The state attorney has the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, the amount of loss a victim has sustained as the result of a crime and that the defendant caused the victim's loss. Delks v. State, 622 So.2d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Touchton v. State, 616 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); § 775.089(7), Fla....

...We reverse on that point and remand for a determination of appellant's ability to pay court costs, upon proper notice to him. Fountain v. State, 524 So.2d 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla. 1984); Lawton v. State, 492 So.2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The trial court exceeded its authority under section 775.089, Florida Statutes to order restitution by including the term "civil judgment" in the restitution orders. Thereupon the term "civil judgment" is stricken from both judgments. As the state concedes, the court further erred in failing to inquire as to appellant's ability to pay restitution prior to entering its order, as required by section 775.089(6)....

...1984. On March 8, 1985, community control was revoked and appellant was sentenced to thirty months incarceration and ordered to pay $15 to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund and $2 in court costs. He was also ordered to make restitution pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...Appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing restitution and in requiring him to pay court costs and make payment to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund as a part of his sentence without affording him notice or an opportunity to be heard. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...However, the controlling statute is that which is in effect at the time of the commission of the crime, rather than at the time of sentencing. Ellis v. State, 298 So.2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 298 So.2d 411 (Fla. 1974). In the instant case, appellant committed the crime before the effective date of the amendment to section 775.089, which was October 1, 1984. Chapter 84-363, section 17, Laws of Florida. Therefore, section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1983) was still in effect and requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before restitution *55 can be imposed....

...Appellant claims that the state failed to prove his financial ability to pay restitution and the state failed to properly establish the value of the automobile at the time it was stolen. We affirm as to the former issue but reverse and remand as to the latter. Although Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), requires the court to consider "the financial resources of the defendant, the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents," subsection (7) clearly provides that the burden of demonstrating such financial resources and needs is on the defendant....

...In fact, defense counsel, upon being invited by the court to proceed, affirmatively announced, "We have no evidence, your honor." As to the valuation issue, the state, of course, has the burden of proving the amount of the loss sustained by the victim. § 775.089(7)....

...ermining the amount of loss for inclusion in the restitution provision of a probation order. In Abbott v. State, 543 So.2d 411, 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), this court said: The amount of restitution for stolen property as a condition of probation under section 775.089 should be based on the fair market value of the property at the time of the theft....

...The State concedes that the trial court made no findings concerning Appellant's ability to pay restitution. Repeatedly we have held that the trial court must consider a defendant's financial resources prior to the imposition of restitution. Denmark v. State, 588 So.2d 324, 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) and cases cited therein. Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1993), directs restitution only after the trial court considers the financial resources of the defendant, the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant, and such other factors which it deems appropriate....

...PER CURIAM. The sole claim in this appeal is that the trial court erred in ordering defendant to make restitution as a condition of probation without first establishing the defendant's ability to pay the amount ordered. We affirm the trial court's order. Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1991) requires that a sentencing judge determine the defendant's ability to pay prior to ordering a defendant to make restitution....

...However, he failed to take any action to let the court know he had any problem with the amount of the obligation. A careful reading of the transcripts leaves no doubt that Blasco voluntarily and intelligently accepted the restitution amount as part of his negotiated plea. Thus, we find defendant "waived" the protection of section 775.089(6) by his own actions....

...ng the need for such financial assistance. See §§ 409.235, .185, Florida Statutes (1981). Id. We adopt the second district's holding and reasoning as our own. We also note that such conclusion is consistent with the legislative mandate embodied in section 775.089(2), Florida Statutes (1983), that, in determining the amount and method of payment of restitution, the trial court shall consider not only the financial resources of the defendant, but "the burden the payment of restitution will impose on the defendant," as well (emphasis added)....

...ol that J.D. had damaged. Specifically, he contends this expense was not causally connected to his criminal act. The court is permitted to order restitution to the victim for "damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense," section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001), and the court seemed to be within its discretion to order such restitution....

...In the former situation, the controlling statute specifically allows the court to consider not only the financial resources of the defendant, but also the "present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate." Section 775.089(6), Fla....

...Stat., without consideration of her husband's income and expenses. MINER, J., concurs. SMITH, J., specially concurs and dissents with opinion. SMITH, Judge, specially concurring and dissenting. I concur in the majority's opinion, but I would add, for clarification, that the language of section 775.089(6), quoted in the majority opinion, does not contemplate that the court, in determining a defendant's ability to pay, may base that decision upon the ability of the defendant's dependents, or spouse, to contribute to or pay any portion of the restitution amount. Insofar as the majority opinion may imply a contrary construction of section 775.089(6), I dissent.

...The trial court found it had the ability to eyeball Mr. Wencel and recognize him as being the person in the identification photograph, and taken with other corroborating information such as date of birth, found that this met the preponderance of the evidence standard required of the state. See § 775.089(8)(a)3, Fla....

...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? State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla. 1988). Section 775.089(7) provides: *1159 Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence....

...For this proposition he relies on State v. MacLeod, 600 So.2d 1096 (Fla.1992). We disagree. Subsequent to the MacLeod decision, the legislature amended section 924.07, Florida Statutes, to authorize a state appeal from "[a]n order denying restitution under s. 775.089." § 924.07(1)(k), Fla.Stat....

...A crime victim is allowed to pursue both a restitution remedy and a civil remedy. "An order of restitution hereunder [under the restitution statute] will not bar any subsequent civil remedy or recovery, but the amount of such restitution shall be set off against any subsequent independent civil recovery." See § 775.089(8), Fla.Stat....

...vely than litigation of a civil lawsuit. On the other hand, under the restitution statute the trial court must not only consider the amount of the victim's loss, but also the financial resources of the defendant and any other appropriate factor. Id. § 775.089(6). Consequently, the restitution award may be for less than the victim's claim. The statute is very clear that the remedies of restitution and civil suit are not mutually exclusive; the *463 crime victim may pursue both. Id. § 775.089(8)....

...per restitution hearing. For purposes of proceedings on remand, we would point out that in a restitution hearing, "[a]ny dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence." Id. § 775.089(7) (emphasis added)....

...Fulmer for his expenses, and specified an amount to be paid to each of the six individuals (including the already compensated staff members) who spent time in the investigation. Only that part of the restitution order compensating for the time and expense incurred is challenged. Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), requires restitution to the victim for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the offense, unless the court finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution. While section 775.089(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1991), provides that the term "victim" includes the aggrieved party (and others not relevant here), the statute does not limit the scope of the term....

...ing to breach of contract damages), and (2) the element of causation is likened to the proximate causation requirement in tort (which is generally limited to damages caused directly by the tort), standards more restrictive than the clear language of Section 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...een "suppressing evidence and concealing information." This sum was included within the award of $1,250.00. We agree that it was error to order Ahnen to reimburse Mr. Heiden for the private investigator's fee. Before restitution may be awarded under section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1987), there must be a significant relationship between the crime committed and the damages sustained, plus proof that the defendant's conduct directly or indirectly caused the loss....

...The appellant challenges a $6,000 restitution award resulting from his grand theft conviction. As the appellant contends, and the state concedes, the state failed to put on evidence regarding the amount of the victim's loss. Thus, we reverse the restitution award and remand for a new restitution hearing. See § 775.089(7), Fla....

...Appellant's negotiated plea was expressly conditioned upon an agreement by appellant to pay restitution to the victim. *795 The state contends that because the negotiated plea was conditioned upon an agreement to pay restitution, the trial court did not err in imposing restitution as a condition of appellant's probation. Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1985) requires that the court in determining whether to order restitution and the amount to be assessed, consider the factors enumerated therein....

...The court ordered Nix to pay $1,030 in restitution, the value which the state contended was the fair market value of the fuel stolen. We reject appellant's first contention that restitution cannot be ordered upon a showing that the defendant lacks the present ability to pay. Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), provides, in 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 clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution. In making such determination, the court is required by section 775.089(6) to consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense, the financial resources of the defendant, the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate. Section 775.089(7) places the burden on the defendant of demonstrating his or her financial resources and "the absence of potential future financial resources." The lower tribunal correctly assessed appellant's financial resources before it ordered restitution....

...State, 513 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The court acknowledged that Nix did not then have the ability to pay restitution, and there was no evidence that appellant was malingering in his job search. Nevertheless, Nix did not establish at the hearing, as required by section 775.089(7), "the absence of potential future financial resources." He merely said, "I'm trying to cut some grass along, but it rained so much that I can't make no money at that." We do not consider that such representation complies with the statutory criteria....

...Accordingly, the restitution hearing and the resulting order became a nullity. Procedurally, a trial court must first consider the financial situation of a defendant, and his or her ability to pay, before determining an amount of restitution. See Filmore v. State, 656 So.2d 535, 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also § 775.089(6), Fla....

...Following an evidentiary hearing on the state's motion, the trial court ordered the defendant to pay restitution of $535.00. The state appealed the order and the defendant now seeks to dismiss the appeal. Section 924.07(1)(k), Florida Statutes, authorizes the state to appeal "[a]n order denying restitution under s. 775.089." The defendant argues that the state lacks authority to appeal the order in the present case because the claim of restitution was not denied....

...etheless a "denial" within the meaning of the statute. Specifically, the state contends that the legislative intent to include partial denials within the scope of the statute is evident when section 924.07(1)(k) is interpreted in conjunction with subsection 775.089(1)(b)1 of the restitution statute....

...1st DCA 1994). Section 924.07(1)(k) does not exist in isolation, but rather it is a part of the overall statutory procedure for the recovery of restitution. Hence, the legislative intent in enacting section 924.07(1)(k) is more clearly revealed by a review of section 775.089, the restitution statute it was designed to implement. The preamble to section 775.089 states "the Legislature intends to ensure that all victims of crime are treated with dignity, respect, and sensitivity and that the rights of victims of crime are honored and protected by law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and judges in a vigorous manner...." To this end, the legislature in section 775.089 made payment of restitution mandatory for defendants unless clear and compelling reasons existed justifying the nonpayment of restitution. The preamble also refers to Article I section 16 of the Florida Constitution, which was added in 1988 to ensure the protection of certain basic rights of crime victims. Thus, the main purpose of section 775.089 was to uphold the rights of crime victims by guaranteeing that they are compensated for their losses....

...Pierce, 625 So.2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Lincoln v. Florida Parole Commission, 643 So.2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). When section 924.07(1)(k) was added as a part of the statute on criminal appeals, the legislature also amended the restitution statute to include subsection 775.089(1)(b)1. Both were enacted in Session Law Ch. 93-37 after the supreme court had decided in State v. MacLeod, 600 So.2d 1096 (Fla.1992), that the state could not appeal an order denying restitution *535 under then existing laws. Section 775.089(1)(b)1 states: If the court does not order restitution, or orders restitution of only a portion of the damages, as provided in this section, it shall state on the record in detail the reasons therefor....

...It is apparent from the language of this statute that section 924.07(1)(k) includes an order partially denying a claim for restitution within the class of restitution orders that are appealable by the state. Otherwise, it would have been pointless to include in section 775.089(1)(b)1 a provision that requires the court to make a detailed record statement of the reasons for denying only a portion of a claim for restitution....

...Yolanda Exilorme challenges the trial court's entry of a final judgment of restitution ordering her to pay Burdines Department Stores (Burdines) $2215.24. Because the trial court erred in establishing a restitution amount without a restitution hearing as required by section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2002), we reverse and remand for further proceedings....

...ussion concerning restitution, there was no agreement as to an actual balance due, nor was an amount set at that time. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the sentencing hearing also constituted a restitution hearing as contemplated by section 775.089, nor does the State advocate this position....

...f restitution ordering Exilorme to pay Burdines $2215.24, which apparently represented the full amount she had agreed to pay in the waiver of prosecution agreement. No mention of any offset for the alleged partial payments was noted. This was error. Section 775.089(7) requires a hearing, before restitution is imposed, to determine the amount owed to the victim as well as the defendant's ability to pay....

...This might be correct if Exilorme were arguing that her plea did not include an agreement to pay any restitution. However, in this context, Exilorme is contesting only the amount of restitution, not her liability to pay whatever restitution is actually found owing at a properly held and noticed hearing. Subsections 775.089(6) and (7) require a hearing to determine both the defendant's ability to pay and the amount owed....

...d against the total restitution due. See Bowman v. State, 698 So.2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the *341 amount of restitution due in accordance with section 775.089....

...n for three years. Numerous conditions of probation were imposed, some of which Eloshway attacked via a post-sentence motion for reduction of sentence and objections to probation conditions. Said motion was denied and this appeal ensued. Pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1987), as one of the conditions of probation the trial court ordered appellant to make restitution in the amount of $7,000 payable not less than $200 per month upon her release from prison....

...It seems that the victims of the accident giving rise to these criminal charges were two outstanding baseball players at the named college. The trial court determined that the parents of the victims had incurred expenses of $7,000 as a result of the accident and, thus, were entitled to restitution pursuant to section 775.089(1)(a) and 775.089(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...h County without permission of the probation department for good cause shown. We find no fault with the latter condition. However, we believe the orders pertaining to restitution are defective in that the trial court failed to follow the dictates of section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1987), requiring the court, in fashioning an order of restitution, to determine the financial resources of the defendant as well as her financial needs and earning ability and other appropriate factors....

...ture. As to first and third issues, we affirm. On the second issue, we affirm the split sentence of 10 years in prison followed by 5 years of probation, but we reverse the restitution order and remand for further proceedings consistent with sections 775.089(1)(a) & (6) and 948.03(1), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...2nd DCA 1989). Under the particular facts, the order of probation is invalid in requiring restitution, however, and we reverse the order insofar as it requires restitution, and remand for the trial court to make further findings in compliance with sections 775.089 and 948.03, Florida Statutes (1989), and consistent with our holdings in Holland and Laster. At the sentencing hearing on March 27, 1991, the trial judge imposed a special probationary condition requiring appellant to make restitution as shown by the presentence investigation (PSI). Under section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1989), appellant was not entitled to advance notice before the trial court imposed restitution....

...at 1156, citing McClure v. State, 371 So.2d 196, 197 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979); Gray v. State, 535 So.2d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In this instance, the restitution order is invalid because the determination of the amount is a non-delegable judicial responsibility. Section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1989); Robinson v....

...s basis is improper. See Wilson v. State, 567 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1990.) Accordingly, we vacate Watson's sentence and remand for resentencing. Second, Watson argues that the trial court impermissibly awarded restitution which was unjustified pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...ial ability to pay. While noting defendant did not possess the present financial ability to pay, the trial court ordered restitution. Having had the opportunity, Defendant presented no evidence about his financial circumstances which was his burden. § 775.089(7) Fla....

...s inability to pay, any error was waived. Massie v. State, 635 So.2d 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Bolling; Padilla; Blasco v. State, 601 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Additionally, restitution was not ordered as a condition of probation, but pursuant to section 775.089(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (1993) which requires payment "five years after the term of imprisonment imposed if the court does not order probation." Because probation was not ordered, we are not faced with the potential of defendant's reincarceration for failure to pay the restitution ordered....

...Should the defendant fail to make restitution within the time allotted, the trial court may continue the restitution order and the state or the victim may enforce the order in the same manner as a judgment is enforced in a civil action and as provided in sections 55.03 and 55.10, Florida Statutes (1993). See §§ 775.089(3) and 775.089(5), Fla....

...We withdraw our opinion filed December 31, 2003, and substitute the following opinion. We grant appellee's motion for rehearing, insofar as it pertains to the factual distinction between the instant case and Jones v. State, 480 So.2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), and to the underlying purpose of the restitution statute. See § 775.089, Fla.Stat....

...Ashton v. State, 790 So.2d 1115, 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). A trial court must order a defendant to make restitution for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense, and damage or loss related to the defendant's criminal episode. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...Shields that any increase in the victim's monetary losses, most notably loss of income, caused by her post-injury pregnancy should not be borne by him. However, the State is correct that the amount of restitution awarded is inadequate and not supported by the preponderance of the evidence. See § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (2008); Hector v. State, 784 So.2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Further, Mr. Shields' ability to pay the amounts ordered is a factor to be considered at the time of enforcement, not at imposition. See Hector, 784 So.2d at 1208 (citing § 775.089(6)(b), Fla....

...s perpetrated the crimes. The State did not show what portion of the victim's damages arose from appellant's acts, rather than those of his codefendants. See Fresneda v. State, 347 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 1977). Finally, the trial judge did not comply with Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1981) in that he did not determine appellant's ability to pay, his financial resources or the burden that payment would impose upon him....

...State, 902 So.2d 822, 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Unless "clear and compelling reasons" dictate otherwise, the trial court is required to order restitution to crime victims for "[d]amage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense." § 775.089(1)(a)(1), Fla....

..."The burden of proving the amount of restitution is on the State, and the amount must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Restitution must be proved by substantial competent evidence." Koile, 902 So.2d at 824 (citations omitted); see also § 775.089(7)....

...There is no doubt that unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to do so, the trial court must order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for damage or loss caused by the defendant's *535 offense or related to the defendant's criminal episode. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007). If the court does not order restitution, or orders restitution of only a portion of the damages, the court is required to state detailed reasons on the record. § 775.089(1)(b)(1), Fla....

...directing the payment of restitution. Such direction is ineffectual and must be struck. Smith v. State, 589 So.2d 387, 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The sentence must therefore be remanded to allow the trial court to adopt a payment schedule pursuant to Section 775.089(3), Florida Statutes (1989), [1] and in doing so, it may solicit recommendations from appellant's probation officer....

...Smith. AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED in part for further proceedings. SMITH and ALLEN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The trial court is not required to establish a payment schedule, and if no schedule is established, "restitution must be made immediately." Section 775.089(3)(c), Fla....

...use of the item, and its condition at the time of the theft. See Gonzalez v. State, 40 So.3d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). The trial court “shall” also consider “such other factors which .it deems appropriate.” Hawthorne, 573 So.2d at 333 (quoting section 775.089(6), Fla....

...proceeding. The legislature has acknowledged the trial court's authority to rule on this issue and has vested this discretion to make a ruling in the trial judge, and not in the petitioner, the petitioner's attorney or the appellate court. NOTES [1] Section 775.089(1)(a) provides: ... in addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim... ." [Emphasis added.] Section 775.089(2) provides that: When an offense has resulted in bodily injury to a victim, a restitution order ......

...[5] This was, of course, the judge who presided over the jury trial and knew and, in the exercise of judicial discretion, was entitled to consider, the evidence heard at trial of the underlying criminal case. [6] § 943.058(2), Fla. Stat. [7] See Reddish v. Forlines, 207 So.2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). [1] Section 775.089(1)(a) provides: ... in addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim... ." [Emphasis added.] Section 775.089(2) provides that: When an offense has resulted in bodily injury to a victim, a restitution order ......

...Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee. RYDER, Acting Chief Judge. Knaus contends that the trial court erred in imposing costs of prosecution due the Charlotte County Sheriff's Office as restitution. We agree and therefore strike that portion of the restitution order. Under section 775.089(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1991), the sheriff's office does not meet the definition of a victim....

...We hold that there must be evidence of these factors to justify a departure sentence based on the need for payment of restitution. We recognize that, ordinarily, the defendant's ability to pay restitution need only be considered at the time of enforcement of the restitution order. See § 775.089(6)(b), Fla....

...We agree and strike that portion of condition (8) requiring Jones to pay for random testing. Jones also argues that condition (41), requiring payment of $50 in restitution to the Polk County Sheriff's Office, was error. Because the sheriff's office does not qualify as a victim for payment of *663 restitution pursuant to section 775.089(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2000), we strike condition (41)....

...ndigence of my client, and on the grounds it would appear the funeral costs are quite excessive. Numerous items appear to be top of the line, and my client's ability to pay is extremely minimal. The trial court overruled defense counsel's objection. Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, the trial court shall consider "the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense, the...

...ture financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate." The court must resolve any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution by the preponderance of the evidence. § 775.089(7), Fla....

...denied, 591 So.2d 183 (Fla. 1991); see also Oliverio v. State, 583 So.2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (court reversed part of defendant's sentence relating to restitution because the trial court failed to make a determination of the factors set forth in section 775.089(6) and (7), i.e., the loss to the victim and the defendant's present and future financial resources)....

...In the instant case, appellant objected to the assessment of the funeral costs as restitution because he believed the costs were excessive and because he lacked the ability to pay them. As appellant asserts, the trial court was required to hold a hearing and consider the factors set forth in section 775.089(6)....

...The state argues that the victim impact statement and the attached invoice were sufficient to establish the amount of restitution. Even if this were correct, the trial court erred in refusing to allow appellant to demonstrate his present financial resources "and the absence of potential future financial resources." § 775.089(7), Fla....

...Also, the circuit court should determine if appellant is entitled to receive a credit for $62,500 which he claims was recovered as restitution in the criminal case. "While a crime victim is entitled to pursue both a criminal restitution award and a civil damages award, section 775.089(8)[, Florida Statutes (2007) ] specifically requires that the amount of the restitution award be set off against the civil judgment so that the victim does not receive a double recovery." See Peterson v....

...Here, however, the offense remained defined as theft, but the plea agreement, and not the value of the property stolen, determined the degree of the offense. Yet, the agreement nonetheless undeniably left to the trial court the responsibility of ordering restitution under section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes, for loss occasioned by appellants' offense of theft....

...Finally, the restitution statute mandates that the court shall order the defendant to make restitution for "1. Damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense; and 2. Damage or loss related to the defendant's criminal episode." § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...lant of an opportunity to be heard as to the amount assessed. See Rhoden v. State, 622 So.2d 122, 122-23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Therefore, we strike the $3,685.62 in restitution from the written order and remand for further proceedings consistent with section 775.089, Florida Statutes....

...sixty days. The court subsequently issued a restitution order of $5,055. C.A. argues the trial court did not have jurisdiction because it orally reserved restitution within sixty days of sentencing, rather than entering a written order. We disagree. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1995), and the cases interpreting it, do not require that the order be reduced to writing....

...a restitution order. In addition, the time spent and the cost necessary to determine and document the extent of the monetary loss, as required by the fidelity bonding company, was held to be recoverable in restitution. Restitution is provided for by section 775.089(1)....

...Permitting Mayer to plead to the lesser included offense of dealing in stolen property makes no material difference. We agree with Mayer, however, that the lower court erroneously delegated to the probation officer the duty of formulating a payment schedule. See Ashe v. State, 582 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); § 775.089(3)(a) and (c), Fla....

...[2] After Appellant's criminal case was completed, Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment. The lower court entered summary final judgment against Appellant, from which this appeal was timely taken. As it did below, Appellee relies on sections 772.14 and 775.089(8), Florida Statutes, as support for its position....

...il cause of action under this chapter... shall estop the defendant in any action brought pursuant to this chapter as to all matters as to which such judgment or decree would be an estoppel as if the plaintiff had been a party in the criminal action. 775.089 Restitution....

...ffense in any subsequent civil proceeding. An order of restitution hereunder will not bar any subsequent civil remedy or recovery, but the amount of such restitution shall be set off against any subsequent independent civil recovery. §§ 772.14 and 775.089(8), Fla....

...ally adjudicated in the criminal proceeding as determined by final judgment. Finally, the resolution of this issue was necessary to the proceeding because, by statute, the criminal court was required to determine these damages and order restitution. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...[2] The civil action was brought pursuant to the Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, Chapter 772, Florida Statutes (2005). [3] Although Appellee has offered other reasons for distinguishing Starr Tyme, including the fact that the Starr Tyme court did not consider the effect of section 775.089(8), Florida Statutes (2005), we find it unnecessary to our determination of this case to address these issues.

...tutes. The record does not contain a finding regarding appellant's ability to pay. However, the record does reflect that appellant was declared indigent, and was provided with the services of the public defender's office both at trial and on appeal. Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1989), provides: (6) The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense, the financ...

...e present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate. A defendant is not entitled to advance notice before the trial court imposes restitution under section 775.089, see Williams v....

...y for which restitution was ordered, the court directed that the remand inquiry should also address the appellant's ability to pay, even though no objection was made to restitution in the lower tribunal. The second and third districts have construed section 775.089(6) as requiring the trial court to consider the defendant's ability to pay....

...See also Johnson v. State, 547 So.2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (Since it was undisputed that restitution orders were entered without an opportunity for the defendant to be heard, the court vacated the restitution order and remanded for a hearing pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes.) The record in this case reflects that appellant's trial counsel was called from court during the trial, and substitute counsel's request for a delay in sentencing was denied — even though substitute counsel advise...

...We strike the condition prohibiting contact with anyone under the age of 18 and affirm the two other conditions. Section 921.244(1), Florida Statutes (2008), authorizes a court to prohibit an offender convicted of lewd and lascivious crimes from having contact with his victims. [1] Section 775.089(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), permits restitution for a victim's psychological care....

...viction' (which does not necessarily require an adjudication)." Smith v. Bartlett, 570 So.2d 360, 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (citing State v. Gazda, 257 So.2d 242, 243-44 (Fla. 1971)), review denied, 581 So.2d 1310 (Fla. 1991). In Smith, which involved section 775.089(8), Florida Statutes (1989), we held that one who pleads guilty or is found guilty by a jury has been "convicted," even in the absence of an adjudication....

...ty of that offense. Those are jury decisions." Accordingly, the jury verdict does not support the conclusion that Barkley caused the death of Tiffany Lawson. Since the jury concluded that Barkley's shot did not kill Lawson, it is necessary to review section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1989), the statutory authority for imposing restitution in criminal cases, to determine whether restitution for funeral expenses was appropriate under the jury verdict....

...h he was acquitted. Johnson v. State, 547 So.2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Appellant's acquittal of both murder and manslaughter, and the resulting implication that he did not cause the victim's death, thus precludes the assessment of restitution under section 775.089 for funeral and related services as was done by the appealed order....

...Therefore, this condition must be stricken. Black v. State, 614 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Vinyard v. State, 586 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). See also Nichols v. State, 528 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The parties recognize that the provisions of section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes, place a defendant on constructive notice that restitution may be ordered....

...We decline to so find because the Stand Your Ground Law does not express an intent to abrogate doctrines requiring mutuality and because when the legislature has sought by legislative enactment to abrogate these doctrines, it has clearly and expressly done so. For example, sections 772.14 and 775.089 of the Florida Statutes aid crime victims in obtaining a civil recovery against defendants convicted of certain crimes (i.e....

...y criminal proceeding under chapter 895, shall estop the defendant in any action brought pursuant to this chapter as to all matters as to which such judgment or decree would be an estoppel as if the plaintiff had been a party in the criminal action. 775.089 Restitution— (8) The conviction of a defendant for an offense involving the act giving rise to restitution under this section shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of that offense in any subsequent civil proceeding. An order of restitution hereunder will not bar any subsequent civil remedy or recovery, but the amount of such restitution shall be set off against any subsequent independent civil recovery. § 772.14, Fla. Stat. (2014); § 775.089(8), Fla. Stat (2014) (emphasis supplied); see J & P Transp., Inc. v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y., 750 So.2d 752, 753 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (recognizing that sections 772.14 and 775.089(8) “estop a defendant from denying the essential elements of a crime in a subsequent civil .proceeding involving the same matters”)....

...vil suit to use as an estoppel a ‘final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the state’ in a prior criminal proceeding that concerned the conduct at issue in the civil action.”). Fui'thermore, as noted by the Florida Supreme Court, sections 775.089(8) and 772.14 did not abolish the doctrine of mutuality in its entirety, but rather evidenced the legislature’s specific intent to restrict it in the manner expressly set forth: *529 Stogniew also contends that the legislature effectively abolished the doctrine of mutuality when it enacted sections 775.089(8) and 772.14, Florida Statutes (1993) which give collateral estoppel effect to criminal convictions in subsequent civil proceedings brought by the victim of the crime....

...f probation. And that restitution will be ordered. The amount of restitution and the scheduled payments will be determined by the court. Is that your understanding of the agreement? DEFENDANT: Yes. COURT: Are you satisfied with that? DEFENDANT: Yes. Section 775.089(1)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1993) provides: An order of restitution entered as part of a plea agreement is as definitive and binding as any other order of restitution ......

...that she has paid all that she can. § 948.06, Fla. Stat. (1993); Morgan v. State, 491 So.2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). AFFIRMED. PETERSON, J., concurs. W. SHARP, J., dissents with opinion. W. SHARP, Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent based on section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1989), and because I disagree with the majority's conclusion that the imposition of the ordered restitution is a positive "incentive" to Therrien....

...1st DCA), rev. denied, 624 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1993). The Florida Supreme Court has consistently held that a contemporaneous *291 objection is not required to preserve a purely legal sentencing issue. See, e.g., Ashley; Taylor. The imposition of restitution under section 775.089 and the facts contained in this record, present such an issue. Specifically, section 775.089(6) requires the judge to consider the "present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents," as well as other relevant factors....

...State, 447 So.2d 974, 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); M.A.R. v. State, 433 So.2d 29 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 441 So.2d 632 (Fla. 1983). The defendant must then establish his or her current basic financial needs and those of his or her dependents, and any future earning capacity. § 775.089(7), Fla....

...It is clear from Therrien's testimony, that only a few of the lottery tickets were "winners," and the money from the winning tickets was used to pay for groceries and other household bills. No other evidence of Therrien's financial resources was presented at the hearing. Section 775.089(7) requires a judge to resolve discrepancies as to the amount or type of restitution by a preponderance of the evidence....

...ficial behavior in connection with a scheme to have the Escambia County Commission purchase the soccer complex property. We subsequently affirmed those convictions; reversed the trial court's ruling that the county was not a "victim" for purposes of section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2002), and as a result was not entitled to restitution; and remanded so that the state might have an opportunity to prove that the county had suffered a loss as the result of appellee's crimes, and the amount of any such loss....

...If it had done so, the evidence indicates it very likely could have made a profit, perhaps a substantial one, on the conveyance." This appeal follows. For purposes of restitution, the burden rests with the state to prove the amount of the victim's loss by the greater weight of the evidence. § 775.089(7), Fla....

...To ascertain whether a restitution award is required, the trial court must determine whether: (1) The loss or damage was directly or indirectly causally connected to the offense; and, (2) The loss or damage bears some significant relationship to the offense, i.e., was foreseeable. See § 775.089(1)(a), Fla. Stat.; Glaubius v. State, 688 So.2d 913, 915 (Fla.1997). If these two elements are present, restitution must be ordered. See § 775.089(1)(a)1.-2., Fla....

...We may have had some insight into the meaning of this phrase had the trial court complied with the statutory requirements of stating on the record "in detail" its reasons for denying restitution, and providing "clear and compelling reasons not to order restitution." § 775.089(1)(a)-(b)1., Fla....

...ere was no condition requiring testing in the probation order. That case neither involved fundamental error nor a probationer who admitted the violation. We reverse the order of restitution which required appellant to pay restitution, as mandated by section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2001), to the "Sheriff of Broward County Restitution Fund-BSO Finance Division." Because the sheriff's office does not meet the statutory definition of "victim" it is fundamental error to order restitution to be paid to the sheriff's office....

...tion and sentence and therefore AFFIRM. We must REVERSE, however, the trial court's written order of restitution in the amount of $1338.00, which apparently was entered without notice or hearing, and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...y to her child. Based upon Dr. Reed's testimony, the trial court found the mother entitled to restitution for her own injuries and assessed an amount therefor to be paid by appellant. Appellant objected to the court's finding in favor of the mother. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...The trial court adjudicated G.M.H. delinquent for burglary of a dwelling and grand theft of a dirt bike. G.M.H. challenges an order awarding restitution to the victim in the amount of $1062. He argues that there is insufficient evidence to support this award. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2007), provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (6)(a) The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense....

...O'Conner's ability to pay to the probation officer. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings to determine the fair market value of the damages caused directly or indirectly by Mr. O'Conner's offenses, and the defendant's ability to pay restitution. § 775.089, Fla....

...Certainly, this principle ensures fairness in the process of determining the amount of restitution and we agree with Maurer that it should be applied to this case. But, we are also required to protect the rights of the innocent crime victim by proper application of the provisions of section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2005), which requires the trial court to order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for "[d]amage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense" and for "[d]amage or loss related to the defendant's criminal episode, unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution." § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...2006): In numerous years, the Legislature has passed and amended the restitution statute, and each time the Legislature has stated that its intent is to ensure that victims of crime are properly compensated and respected by the criminal justice system. For example, in 1984 when the Legislature amended section 775.089 to include the provisions at issue, the Legislature made explicit findings that "[e]ven though there is growing recognition that the criminal justice system would cease to function without the cooperation of victims and witnesses, the...

...nd other losses." Id. Accordingly, the Legislature required courts to order the defendant to make restitution to the victims unless clear and compelling reasons existed to justify the nonpayment of restitution. . . . In 1992, the Legislature amended section 775.089 slightly, and in the bill amending the statute specifically noted that it had previously determined that "the state has a moral responsibility to provide aid, care, and support to victims of crime." Ch. 92-107 at 901, Laws of Fla. (preamble). Id. at 1232-33 (footnotes omitted). This analysis led the court to conclude that the main purpose of section 775.089 is to guarantee that innocent crime victims are compensated for their losses and that anything less than full compensation would defeat the purpose of the statute....

...tions, and sustained $4000 in damages to the stolen truck. Finding that the victim's testimony was sufficient to connect Watson to the theft of the truck and the equipment it had contained, the trial court ordered him to pay $204,000 in restitution. Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), provides in pertinent part: In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...The trial court is best able to determine how imposing restitution may best serve those goals in each case. 573 So.2d 330, 333 (Fla.1991) (quoting Spivey v. State, 531 So.2d 965, 967 (Fla.1988)); *775 see also J.K. v. State, 695 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Section 775.089(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that “in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution,” a sentencing judge “shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the...

...Unless a court “finds clear and compelling reasons” not to order restitution, a court must order a defendant to make restitution for “[djamage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense” and for “[djamage or loss related to the defendant’s criminal episode.” § 775.089(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). Where ordered, restitution is a mandatory condition of probation or parole. § 775.089(4), Fla. Stat. (2010). The current statute is a change from the pre-1995 version, under which the “trial court was affirmatively required to consider the defendant’s financial resources when imposing restitution.” Del Valle, 80 So.3d at 1006 ; see § 775.089(6), Fla....

...the court to receive evidence, as we more fully explain. Essentially defendant's argument is that the sentencing restitution order must, as a matter of law, be deemed fully satisfied by the insurance carrier's payment of policy limits. He relies on section 775.089(8), which provides: "The conviction of a defendant for an offense involving the act giving rise to restitution under this section shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of that offense in any subsequent civil proceeding. An order of restitution hereunder will not bar any subsequent civil remedy or recovery, but the amount of such restitution shall be set off against any subsequent independent civil recovery." [emphasis supplied] § 775.089(8), Fla....

...lt and sentencing were withheld. They appeal the orders imposing restitution and costs of prosecution. We affirm the orders of restitution. No evidence established the absence of sufficient "present and potential future ... earning abilit[ies]." See § 775.089(6), Fla....

...In determining whether to order restitution and the amount of restitution, the trial court is required to consider the amount of loss sustained by the victim and the financial resources of the defendant and his or her present and future financial needs and earning ability. See § 775.089(6), Fla....

...PURPOSE OF RESTITUTION "Unlike civil damages, restitution is a criminal sanction. The purpose of restitution is not only to compensate the victim, but also to serve the rehabilitative, deterrent, and retributive goals of the criminal justice system." Spivey v. State, 531 So.2d 965, 967 (Fla. 1988). Pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2005), a defendant shall be ordered to make restitution to the victim for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense. In a case such as this one, where the defendant's crime resulted in the victim's death, section 775.089(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes (2005), provides that the defendant shall "pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary funeral and related services." Pursuant to section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (2005), when there is a dispute as to the amount of restitution, the State has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the proper amount of the loss....

...A.M. also argues that the juvenile court erred in requiring him to pay $14,036.34 in restitution to the victim of the battery in its order on count II. A.M. contends that the restitution to the victim is not related to his criminal mischief offense. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2004), requires that a court order a defendant to pay restitution for: "1....

...We affirm the order of probation but are compelled to reverse the order of restitution because of the lack of any probative evidence demonstrating the amount ordered constituted "damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense" of grand theft. See sections 775.089(1)(a) (restitution to victim shall be for damage or loss directly or indirectly caused by defendant's criminal conduct) and 948.03(1)(e) (restitution as condition of probation), Florida Statutes (1989); State v....

...State, 581 So.2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Dickens v. State, 556 So.2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The state did not carry its statutory burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Appellant caused the victim damage or loss in the amount ordered. See section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1989); Morel v....

...for ... [d]amage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense” and “[djamage or loss related to the defendant’s criminal episode,” unless the court “finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution.” § 775.089(l)(a)l.-2., Fla. Stat. (2011). In determining whether to order restitution and the amount itself, the court “shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense.” § 775.089(6)(a). The State has the burden to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense. § 775.089(7)....

...It appears the trial court committed no error when setting the amounts Mr. Sheppard was to reimburse these two entities for their respective investigative costs. However, the trial court's restitution order fails to distinguish between restitution, governed by section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1997), and costs of conviction, governed by section 938.27, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...Seidman argues that the court's order "requiring restitution/disgorgement as a condition of probation is an illegal and improper sentence," because it fails to identify a victim and because the Department is not a proper "victim" under the restitution statute. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2001), states in part: (1)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1. Damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense; and 2. Damage or loss related to the defendant's criminal episode, unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution.... § 775.089(1)(a)1.-2....

...Accordingly, we find no basis for reversal as to this issue. Restitution for the Victim’s Lost Wages Elmer argues that the victim’s lost wages are not recoverable because the statute in effect at the time of the crime limited such recovery to cases involving bodily injury. See § 775.089(2)(c), Fla....

...[3] The trial court eventually ordered restitution in this amount, after granting a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion challenging the amount initially ordered. [4] The state has the burden to show that a defendant's criminal episode or offense caused the victim's loss, directly or indirectly. § 775.089(7), Fla....

...Ritch does not argue that the amount alleged in the grand theft charge limited the restitution amount or that Columbia Grain did not suffer, directly or indirectly, some loss "related to the defendant's criminal episode" of dealing in stolen property. § 775.089(1)(a)2., Fla....

...[3] The state argued that the amount of the civil judgment was the lowest amount of restitution that would be "appropriate." Defense counsel argued that the only evidence regarding the actual number of times Mr. Ritch improperly sold grain to Mr. Alonso was the testimony of Mr. Ritch. [4] Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2005), provides in part: (1)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...tion at a later date when the victim's counseling is completed. Weckerle v. State, 579 So.2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (citing McCaskill v. State, 520 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)). Appellant had constructive notice that restitution would be imposed, § 775.089, Fla....

...A written order was later entered reflecting this amount, along with the other restitution due as to other matters. The burden of proof in proving restitution is on the state, which must prove the proper amount of restitution to be made by a preponderance of the evidence. See § 775.089(7), Fla....

...rrections, with an additional 4% fee for handling, processing, and forwarding said restitution to the victim(s), in the manner specified in the order of probation. ____ Total monetary restitution is to be paid through the Clerk of Court, pursuant to Section 775.089(11)(a), in the manner specified in the judgement and sentence....

WELLS, J. We have for review a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal on the following questions, which the court certified to be of great public importance: DOES SECTION 775.089, FLORIDA STATUTES (2003), AUTHORIZE A RESTITUTION AWARD FOR THE LOST WAGES OF A NEXT OF KIN VOLUNTARILY ATTENDING THE MURDER TRIAL OF THE PERSON ACCUSED OF KILLING THE VICTIM? DOES SECTION 775.089, FLORIDA STATUTES (2003), AUTHORIZE A RESTITUTION AWARD FOR THE ESTATE OF A MURDER VICTIM OF AN AMOUNT CONSISTING OF THE LOST FUTURE INCOME OF THE VICTIM? Koile v....

...urt proceedings because the attendance did not bear a significant relationship to the underlying criminal offense. Koile, 902 So.2d at 826 . In turning to the second issue, however, the Fifth District reached a different conclusion, determining that section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2003), authorized the estate of a murder victim to receive as restitution the future lost income of the murder victim....

...See Daniels v. Fla. Dep’t of Health, 898 So.2d 61, 64 (Fla. 2005); D’Angelo v. Fitzmaurice, 863 So.2d 311, 314 (Fla.2003). Koile first alleges that the district court erred in permitting an award for the victim’s lost wages, alleging that section *1230 775.089, Florida Statutes (2003), does not provide for this type of award. 1 Section 775.089 states in pertinent part: (1)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...Reimburse the victim for income lost by the victim as a result of the offense. 4. In the case of an offense which resulted in bodily injury that also resulted in the death of a victim, pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary funeral and related services. § 775.089, Fla....

...legislative history to determine legislative intent.” BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 863 So.2d at 289. Keeping these principles in mind, we turn to the petitioner’s arguments. Koile first asserts that the only expenses specifically identified under section 775.089 as a legitimate restitution item for a deceased victim are funeral expenses and that the statute' does not expressly state that projected lost future income can be awarded to the estate or the decedent’s next of kin....

...2 According to the plain language of the statute, the term “victim” includes not only the person injured by the defendant but also the person’s estate if he or she is deceased as well as the person’s next of kin if he or she is deceased as a result of the offense. See § 775.089(l)(c), Fla....

...Goode, 830 So.2d 817, 824 (Fla.2002) (“[A] basic rule of statutory construction provides that the Legislature does not intend to enact useless provisions, and courts should avoid readings that would render part of a statute meaningless.”). Accordingly, reading section 775.089(2)(a)(3) by using the full definition of “victim” if a crime results in bodily injury, a court must “reimburse the victim [including his estate and next of kin] for income lost by the victim [including his estate and next of kin...

...dant shall also pay the cost of the necessary funeral and related services. A defendant does not pick which provision he prefers; he is liable for all of the costs that are applicable. To read the statute in the manner proposed by Koile would ignore section 775.089(l)(e), which expands the definition of the term “victim.” Koile also contends that subsection 775.089(2)(a)(3) should be read as stating that the court can award lost income only if the income was lost prior to-the restitution hearing....

...3 This definition is not as restrictive as Koile suggests but instead includes both paying a person back for expenses already incurred and restoring a person back to the position he or she formerly occupied so that the person is made whole. Based on the above analysis, we find that the plain language of section 775.089 clearly authorizes an award of lost income, including lost income which will occur based on the decedent’s death....

...In numerous years, the Legislature has passed and amended the restitution statute, and each time the Legislature has stated that its intent is to ensure that victims of crime are properly compensated and respected by the criminal justice system. For example, in 1984 when the Legislature amended section 775.089 to include the provisions at issue, the Legislature made explicit findings that “[e]ven though there is growing recognition that the criminal justice system would cease to function without the cooperation of victims and witnesses, t...

...“the aggrieved party, the aggrieved party’s estate if the aggrieved party is deceased, and the aggrieved party’s next of kin if the aggrieved party is deceased as a result of the offense.” Id. § 5 at 2146. 5 In 1992, the Legislature amended section 775.089 slightly, and in the bill amending the statute specifically noted that it had previously determined that “the state has *1233 a moral responsibility to provide aid, care, and support to victims of crime.” Ch. 92-107 at 901, Laws of Fla. (preamble). The main purpose of section 775.089 has been to uphold the rights of crime victims by guaranteeing that they are compensated for their losses. Anything less than full compensation for those items discussed in section 775.089 would defeat the legislative intent of the statute....

...Mary’s Hosp., Inc. v. Phillipe, 769 So.2d 961, 967 (Fla.2000). As addressed above, Koile’s interpretation of the statute would render the section expanding the definition of “victim” meaningless. The next issue this Court must consider is whether section 775.089 authorizes a restitution award for the lost wages of a next of kin who voluntarily attends the murder trial of the person accused of killing the decedent....

...g to physical, psychiatric, and psychological care, including non-medical care and treatment rendered in accordance with a recognized method of healing. [[Image here]] 3. Reimburse the victim for income lost by the victim as a result of the offense. § 775.089, Fla. Stat. (2003) (emphasis added). Reading section 775.089(2)(a)3 by using the full definition of “victim” requires that in cases where bodily harm occurred, the court must “reimburse the victim [including his estate and next of kin] for income lost by the victim, [including his *1234 estate and next of kin] as a result of the offense.” § 775.089(2)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (2003) (emphasis added). Based on this language, the statute itself requires that the loss must be causally connected to the offense. When reviewing a challenge to a restitution award under section 775.089, Florida courts have required a finding that “the loss or damage is causally connected to the offense and bears a significant relationship to the offense.” Schuette v....

...Thus, the lost income was not a result of the offense but was a result of a voluntary decision and does not bear a significant relationship to the offense. We agree that this lost income is not recoverable under the statute. CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis, we answer the certified questions by holding that section 775.089 authorizes a restitution award for the estate of a murder victim of an amount.consisting of the lost future income of the victim, and section 775.089 does not authorize restitution for the lost wages of a next of kin who voluntarily attends the murder trial of the person accused of killing the victim....

...re too many unanswered questions under the statute and that if the Legislature had really intended this type of award, it would have provided more guidance. It is important to note, however, that Koile is not raising any constitutional challenges to section 775.089....

...of the certified questions. We decline to address those claims that are beyond the scope of the certified questions and instead limit our opinion to the certified questions asked by the Fifth District: the types of restitution that are authorized by section 775.089....

...We agree with the state that the comment was not improper and with the argument that it was, in any event, invited by appellant's cross-examination of state witnesses. Finally, the sentence imposed restitution upon appellant without a determination of the factors set forth in section 775.089(6) and (7), Florida Statutes, i.e., the loss to the victim, the defendant's present and future financial resources, etc....

additional pieces of jewelry. Pursuant to section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2013), a defendant

...ustained by the victim as well as defendant's ability to pay the assessed amount. Accordingly, the restitution is vacated and remanded to the lower court for reimposition if appropriate, on proper notice, hearing and pronouncement in compliance with section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...The trial court ruled that the legal expenses incurred by the Kitoses were causally related to Appellant's organized fraud offense. We agree with Appellant that these expenses were not caused either directly or indirectly by the offense and reverse. Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), provides that: In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...Restitution may be monetary or nonmonetary restitution. The term "victim" as used in this statute means "each person who suffers property damages or loss, monetary expense, or physical injury or death as a direct or indirect result of the defendant's offense or criminal episode. . . ." § 775.089(1)(c), Fla....

...claimed by the victim. See L.H. v. State, 803 So.2d 862, 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The causation and significant relationship tests involved in determining restitution for an offense work in conjunction with, and not independently of, each other. See § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...n the criminal case is beyond the contemplation of the restitution statute. REVERSED and REMANDED. PERRY, B., Associate Judge, concurs. PLEUS, J., dissents, with opinion. *1082 PLEUS, J., dissenting. I disagree with the far too narrow application of section 775.089 and therefore dissent....

...te should have asked this court to exercise its certiorari jurisdiction to review the trial court's jurisdictional ruling. See Ward v. State, 854 So.2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Instead, the State filed an unauthorized motion for rehearing, asserting section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2002), the criminal restitution statute, as authority for a restitution award. While the State correctly argues that section 775.089 provides jurisdiction for a restitution award, its argument fails to recognize that such jurisdiction only extends sixty days following sentencing....

...I think I'll go ahead with it. Then you can review it later. I'm going ahead with it. The order was thereafter rendered without any further substantiation of the lost wage claim. Lost wages may well provide a proper basis for a restitution award to a victim of a crime. § 775.089(2)(c), Fla....

...1993); Thomas v. State, 517 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Snell v. State, 502 So.2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 784.045(1)(a)(2), Fla. Stat. (1989). [2] § 775.089(7), Fla....

...Moreover, we find that the chemical analysis of Henninger's blood was *489 performed "substantially" in compliance with approved methods as required by section 316.1933(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1993). We must reverse that portion of Henninger's sentence which requires restitution pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.)....

...er's injury and death. Because the restitution ordered here relates solely to damages arising out of an injury and death of which Henninger was charged and acquitted by the jury, this restitution is precluded by the specific causation requirement in section 775.089....

...State, 977 So.2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (same). Restitution is a criminal sanction and considered a part of the sentence, and a restitution order must be imposed at the time of the sentence or within 60 days thereafter. State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993); § 775.089, Fla....

...The trial court's sole finding was that Ford had a job, a fact that has no bearing on the victim's need. Furthermore, "there is no reason that restitution could not be made a condition of any post-incarceration probation." State v. White, 755 So.2d 830, 832 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); see § 775.089, Fla....

...We find no merit in her contention that the state did not present sufficient competent evidence to establish the amount of restitution. We agree, however, that the court erred by not allowing the appellant to testify at the restitution hearing with regard to her ability to pay restitution. See § 775.089(6), Fla....

...Thus, she was ordered to pay restitution in the sum of $3,234.11 consisting of $1,400 to the victim in the instant case plus the sums of $1,700 and $134.11 to the two victims in the other unrelated case. This clearly was improper. Restitution which may be ordered by the trial judge pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1985), clearly constitutes restitution for the loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced....

...ation, the said restitution is stricken as a condition of probation and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to impose a reasonable amount of restitution which is within the defendant's present or potential future ability to pay. § 775.089(6), (7), Fla....

...PER CURIAM. We affirm appellant's conviction and sentence, but reverse the restitution order and remand for redetermination of the amount of restitution, because the state failed to carry its burden of proving the amount of the victim's loss, as required by section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1997)....

...A restitution order is not one of the matters that tolls rendition of an order. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(i). The restitution statute provides: “In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim . . . .” § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...kes, given the totality of the evidence presented, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Mr. Bradbury restitution based on the fair market value as established by the most recently offered discounted retail prices. See § 775.089(7), Fla....

...The sentences are affirmed; however, the trial court erred when it ordered Sims to pay $1,022.31 in restitution to the State of Florida for the supervision costs of her unsuccessful probation and community control. The State does not qualify as a victim for payment of restitution pursuant to section 775.089(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1997)....

...nce with due process requirements *851 as to costs imposed by the orders appealed in this case. Gaskin v. State, 513 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). However, the defendant was not entitled to advance notice before the court imposed restitution under section 775.089. Although a trial court must follow the requirements under section 775.089(6) to consider the financial resources of the defendant before imposing restitution, Gaskin, supra at 1088, the failure in this case to assert the right to such proceedings under section 775.089(6) at the sentencing hearing constituted a waiver of the defendant's right to appeal the trial court's failure to determine his ability to pay....

...ary for appellant's rehabilitation and protection of the public against future theft. By this analysis a probation condition which is proper under section 948.03(8) would not necessarily be precluded by the causal or significant relationship test in section 775.089(1)(a) for an independent restitution condition. Although the state's argument is sufficiently persuasive that we conclude for affirmance on these issues, we certify the following as questions of great public importance pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v): 1) DOES SECTION 775.089, FLORIDA STATUTES, PERMIT REIMPOSITION OF UNPAID RESTITUTION SUMS UPON VIOLATION OF PROBATION, WHEN THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM PERIOD OF INCARCERATION IS IMPOSED WITHOUT ANY NEW PROBATIONARY PERIOD? 2) MAY A PROBATION ORDER FOR GRAND THEFT...

...compliance with due process requirements as to the imposition of court costs. I also agree that appellant waived his right to appeal the trial court's failure to determine his ability to pay restitution, because he failed to assert his rights under Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...l error occurred, we are allowed to address the merits of such an issue for the first time on appeal. Id. In my judgment, as explained infra, the court's imposition of restitution as part of a sentence for an unrelated offense was fundamental error. Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), provides as follows: (1)(a) 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....

...We reverse that part of the order of restitution which requires appellant to pay the investigative costs of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Stuart Police Department. In Bain v. State, 559 So.2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), this court held a police agency was not a "victim" as used within section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1987), and that investigative costs should be imposed pursuant to section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...State, 519 So.2d 618 (Fla. 1988); Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla. 1984). We also note that it is unclear from the sentencing order whether the investigative costs were imposed pursuant to section 939.01, Florida Statutes (1987), or as restitution pursuant to section 775.089(b), Florida Statutes (1987). Because we find that a police agency is not a "victim" within section 775.089(b), the investigative costs should be imposed pursuant to section 939.01, if the trial court decides to order such costs....

...The court did not set any payment schedule for the restitution, even though the state had asked only that some amount be paid each month. If no schedule of payments is ordered by the trial court, then payment of restitution must be made immediately. § 775.089(3)(c), Fla....

...t of appellants. Appellants also rely upon Ahnen v. State, 565 So.2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) in which the court reversed an award of restitution for the amount a theft victim paid to a private investigator to locate his missing property. Relying upon section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1987) and upon State v....

...or a total cost of $12,097.70. Appellee concludes that the restitution ordered in this case does not exceed Eycleshimer's expenses proximately caused by the theft. We agree with appellants that the restitution orders in this case should be reversed. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1991) provides in part: 775.089 Restitution....

...The burden of demonstrating such other matters as the court deems appropriate is upon the party designated by the court as justice requires. Notably, the victim of a crime may be awarded income lost as a result of the offense if he or she has sustained bodily injury. Section 775.089(2)(c), Fla....

...ich were the subject of the above charges were stolen in a burglary of her storage shed. The trial court ordered Chapman to pay restitution for all the property that was taken from the shed, including items never associated with Chapman. Pursuant to section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), Chapman is required to pay restitution for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by her offenses and for damage or loss related to her criminal episode....

...Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new restitution hearing. PATTERSON, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur. NOTES [1] Chapman did not move for a statement of particulars. [2] Milton v. State, 644 So.2d 143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), interpreted section 775.089(1)(a) prior to its 1993 amendment which added the condition that a defendant must make restitution for damage or loss related to his/her criminal episode....

...(2007). The statute applicable to adults provides that restitution is properly awarded for “[djamage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense” and “[djamage or loss *716 related to the defendant’s criminal episode.” § 775.089(l)(a), Fla....

...stitution in the sentence. We conclude, however, that the statutes require that a court shall order restitution to a victim who has suffered a loss, unless the court states on the record clear and compelling reasons for not ordering restitution. See § 775.089(1)(a) and (b), Fla....

...t included the $38,348.17 for the missing items as testified to by Thompson. The state did not carry its statutory burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that appellant caused the victim damage or loss in the amount ordered. See § 775.089(7), Fla....

...ud and grand theft. The state acknowledges that the amount of restitution awarded by the trial *1208 court was not fully supported by the evidence. The restitution award was $1200 more than the amount of loss testified to by the victim. According to section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), "the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1. Damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense...." However, "[a]ny dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence." § 775.089(7), Fla....

...The amount of restitution ordered by the court was not supported by the preponderance of the evidence. We therefore reverse. Appellants also contend that the trial court erred in not determining their ability to pay before imposing restitution. We disagree. Section 775.089(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2000), requires only that the ability to pay be determined at the time of enforcement, not imposition....

...Florida’s restitution statute requires the trial court to order restitution for damage or loss caused by the defendant’s offense, unless the trial court finds clear and compelling reasons not to do so. The trial court must state on the record its reasons for not ordering restitution. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2006), states, in relevant part: (l)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...The court shall make such reparation or restitution a condition of probation, unless it determines that clear and compelling reasons exist to the contrary. If the court does not order restitution, or orders restitution of only a portion of the damages, as provided in s. 775.089, it shall state on the record in detail the reasons therefor. (emphasis added). Given the statutory requirements of both sections 775.089 and 948.03 that restitution be imposed absent “clear and compelling reasons” not to do so, we find that the trial court abused its discretion....

...Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying restitution and remand the matter to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the proper amount of restitution. Any dispute as to the proper amount of restitution shall be resolved by the trial court by the preponderance of the evidence. See Section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (2006).- See also Hitchmon, 678 So.2d at 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Moreover, if the trial court decides not to award restitution, it must provide detailed reasons on the record for the denial. See Section 775.089(l)(b)l....

...g his ability to pay. He does not complain about the amount, $20,115.93, but requests that we remand to the trial court for a determination of ability to pay and an appropriate payment schedule. A defendant must affirmatively assert his rights under section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes, to present evidence of inability to pay restitution at the time it is ordered or the argument is waived....

proceedings after the court orders restitution, see § 775.089(6), Fla. Stat. (2016), but in a juvenile case

...The latter argument may ultimately prove to be true, but is not a certainty. The burden of demonstrating the potential future financial resources and needs of the defendant and her dependents was upon Robbins and she failed to introduce any evidence on this matter. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat....

...may not delegate the responsibility of directing the payment of restitution to the probation officer. Bowers v. State, 596 So.2d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Instead, the court must either adopt a payment schedule pursuant to the restitution provision, Section 775.089(3), Florida Statutes (1989), or order the defendant to pay restitution immediately....

...AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 939.01(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), provides: "The court may require that the defendant pay the costs within a specified period or in specified installments." [2] Section 775.089(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), provides: "The court may require that the defendant make restitution under this section within a specified period or in specified installments."

...Dowdy first contends that since it was not proved that he committed the burglary in which the items he pawned were stolen, the victim's damages were not "caused" by him. We find, however, that Dowdy's receiving the stolen property and pawning it, is sufficiently "related" to the victim's loss to justify restitution. See section 775.089(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes....

...commission of the crime but resulted from the witnesses’ attendance at the hearing. Id. at 809 . Generally, costs resulting from participation in court proceedings are not recoverable, absent a specific statute authorizing them. We recognize that section 775.089(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), permits restitution for “income lost by the victim as a result of the offense.” Even assuming that section 775.889(2)(b) is applicable to juvenile proceedings, we read it as requiring application of the same “significant relation *177 ship” test as section 39.054(l)(f)....

...vices incurred when the victim was transported to the hospital. However, the state concedes error that the victim's mother's claim for lost wages in the sum of $240 is not permitted under the statutory restitution definition of victim, and we agree. Section 775.089(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), defines the term victim....

...ysical injury or death as a direct or indirect result of the defendant's offense or criminal episode, and also includes the victim's estate if the victim is deceased, and the victim's next of kin if the victim is deceased as a result of the offense. § 775.089(1)(c), Fla....

...5th DCA 1993) (holding restitution could not be awarded to nondeceased victim's family members). Based upon the statute, we hold that the award of restitution in favor of the mother of the victim for lost wages is erroneous. The mother is not a victim within the meaning of section 775.089(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1997)....

...We reverse certain restitution awards to the victim's mother because they are either indirect, remote or not satisfactorily proven. The State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the loss was caused by the offense before restitution is appropriate. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat....

...objected, claiming that the trial court had no jurisdiction to impose restitution, not having reserved it at the time of sentencing. The trial court disagreed with defense counsel’s interpretation of events at the sentencing hearing and so do we. Section 775.089 (l)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), requires a trial court to impose restitution upon a defendant at his sentencing or within a specified period thereafter....

...The Florida Supreme Court has determined that restitution serves two purposes: “to (1) compensate the victim and (2) serve the rehabilitative, deterrent, and retributive goals of the criminal justice system.” Glaubius v. State, 688 So.2d 913, 915 (Fla.1997). Section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (2008), provides that for purposes of restitution the burden to prove the amount of loss is on the State and proof must be by a preponderance of the evidence....

...The primary issue on appeal is whether the victim’s hearsay testimony of the value of her stolen jewelry is sufficient to sustain the court’s restitution order. Where the amount of restitution is in dispute, the burden is on the State to prove the amount of the victim’s loss by a preponderance of the evidence. § 775.089(7), Fla....

...us websites she researched to testify as to the restitution amount,” and that the victim appeared to have ho other means by which to prove the amount, thereby leading to an unjust result, the court recommended that “our state legislature revisit section 775.089, *277 Florida Statutes (2012), and consider providing trial courts with wider discretion in setting the restitution amount,” including permitting the consideration of hearsay evidence....

...itution “in a reasonable amount or manner to be determined by the court.” 3 This statute does not delineate who bears the burden of proof on the issues involved, but this court has previously looked to the general restitution statute for adults, § 775.089, Fla. Stat. (2006), to determine issues related to juvenile restitution that are not specifically addressed in the juvenile statute. See T.J.N. v. State, 977 So.2d 770 , 771 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Section 775.089(7) provides that the court must determine restitution based upon a preponderance of the evidence, with the burden of demonstrating the amount of the restitution resting on the State but the burden of proving any inability to pay resting with the defendant. 4 If competent, substantial evidence supports the amount of the restitution award, we review the amount and any payment schedule under an abuse of discretion standard. J.D.H. v. State, 931 So.2d 241, 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Notably, although section 775.089(6) previously required a court ordering restitution in an adult case to consider both the losses sustained by the victim and the defendant’s financial resources and needs in setting the amount, see § 775.089(6), Fla. Stat. (1993), subsections 775.089(6)(a) and (b) now require the court to consider only the amount of the loss sustained by the victim....

...hedule based upon what the adult may reasonably afford or reasonably be expected to afford, even if the adult is unemployed. See, e.g., Bain v. State, 642 So.2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Indeed, the opinion in Bain was based upon the prior version of section 775.089(6), which required the court to consider the defendant’s financial resources when setting the amount, as the current juvenile statute requires....

...Thus, the total restitution imposed in Case No. 91-1221 was $38,272. [1] In April 1992, McManamon filed the instant motion, alleging that the restitution requirements were illegal, in that the trial court had not inquired into his ability to pay. See § 775.089(6), Fla....

...The order purported to attach a copy of the plea agreement, but did not. A trial court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of *92 such restitution, shall consider the financial resources of the defendant and the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant. § 775.089(6), Fla....

...ay the amount of restitution set by the court. Blasco v. State, 601 So.2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Thus, if McManamon agreed to restitution as part of his plea and failed to argue an inability to pay the amount eventually set by the court, see section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (the burden of demonstrating the absence of potential future financial resources of the defendant and his financial needs is on the defendant), the trial court's finding of waiver would be correct....

...The State sought restitution for the loss of the Gator cart, which was apparently never recovered. G.C. objected and argued that there was no nexus between the trespass charges to which he pleaded and damages for the loss of the Gator cart. When established by a preponderance of the evidence, § 775.089(7), *1100 Fla. Stat. (2004), restitution is awarded for damage or loss "caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense" and "related to the defendant's criminal episode," § 775.089(1)(a)....

...admitted only to entering or remaining in the vehicle without permission. See § 810.08(1). He did not admit to grand theft, and in the plea deal the State abandoned that charge without securing G.C.'s agreement to pay restitution for the victim's loss occasioned by the theft of the Gator cart. See § 775.089(1)(b)(2) ("A plea agreement may contain provisions that order restitution relating to criminal offenses committed by the defendant to which the defendant did not specifically enter a plea.")....

...4th DCA 1987) (inadequacy of hearing on defendant's financial resources warranted reversal of restitution order); Amison v. State, 504 So.2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (trial court erred in imposing costs without prior consideration of defendant's ability to pay); Ballance v. State, 447 So.2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (same); § 775.089(6), Fla. Stat. (1987). At that inquiry, it will be each defendant's burden to demonstrate his financial resources and the financial needs of himself and his dependents. § 775.089(7), Fla....

...ne and lost wages incurred and attendant upon the care of their child. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in awarding restitution to the victim's parents because the victim's parents do not fall within the definition of "victim" provided by section 775.089(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1991). We agree and reverse the award of restitution to the victim's parents. Section 775.089(1)(a) provides that the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim. [1] Section 775.089(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1991) provides: The term "victim" as used in this section and in any provision of law relating to restitution includes the aggrieved party, the aggrieved party's estate if the aggrieved party is deceased, and...

...Family members do not fall within the statutory definition of "victim" unless the aggrieved party is deceased as a result of the offense. See Catoe v. State, 618 So.2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (families of rape victims, none of whom are deceased, are not encompassed within statutory language of section 775.089(1)(c)); Ocasio v. State, 586 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (mother of child victim is not a victim within the meaning of section of 775.089(1)(c) since the child is not deceased); Watson v....

...aggrieved party"). The state argues that section 948.03(1)(e) does not preclude the payment of restitution to the parents as aggrieved parties. [2] The state's argument is without merit because the definition of "victim" as provided in section *1369 775.089(1)(c) applies "in any provision of law relating to restitution." We reverse the award of restitution to the victim's parents. This cause is affirmed in all other respects. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part. MINER, MICKLE and DAVIS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] In 1984, the Legislature amended section 775.089 by providing that restitution be made to the "victim" as defined by section 775.089(1)(c). Prior to the 1984 amendments, section 775.089 provided that restitution be made to the "aggrieved party." The former statute did not provide a definition of "aggrieved party." [2] The state cites Ballance v....

...1st DCA 1984) and Milton v. State, 453 So.2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The state's reliance on Ballance and Milton is misplaced since those cases involved the award of restitution to aggrieved parties other than the victim prior to the 1984 amendments to section 775.089, Florida Statutes.

Childers, 979 So.2d 412, 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. Restitution must be proved by competent

...Several months later, Lunsford was represented by a different attorney at the sentencing hearing. He moved for a one month continuance so Lunsford's attorney could be present. However, the trial judge denied the motion and summarily sentenced Lunsford to ten years probation, conditioned on restitution of $2,458.55. Section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1991) puts the burden of demonstrating the amount of loss to be compensated for by restitution on the state....

...ordered K.N. to pay restitution for the damaged doors, the jewelry and the cash. The State argues here, as it did below, that restitution for the jewelry and cash was appropriate because such restitution was expressly part of the plea agreement. See § 775.089(1)(b)(2) (“A plea agreement may contain provisions that order restitution relating to criminal offenses committed by the defendant to which the defendant did not specifically enter a plea.”)....

...y.”). Thus, the instant appeal turns on whether the restitution ordered is for “[d]amage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense” and whether that “[d]amage or loss related to the defendant’s criminal episode.” § 775.089(1)(a)1.-2., Fla. Stat. (2010). With regard to the doors to the home in question, there can be no doubt that these criteria were met. The same cannot be said as to the missing cash and jewelry. To order restitution under section 775.089, the State must prove that the loss or damage for which the defendant is being ordered to pay, is causally connected to the offense and bears a significant relationship to it. See § 775.089(7), Fla....

...admitted only to entering or remaining in the vehicle without permission. See § 810.08(1). He did not admit to grand theft, and in the plea deal the State abandoned that charge without securing G.C.’s agreement to pay restitution for the victim’s loss occasioned by the theft of the [all-terrain vehicle]. See § 775.089(1)(b)(2) (“A plea agreement may contain provi *1261 sions that order restitution relating to criminal offenses committed by the defendant to which the defendant did not specifically enter a plea.”)....

...After Peterson pleaded no contest to the criminal charge and after the restitution order was entered, Therma Builders moved for summary judgment in the civil action, contending that Peterson was estopped from denying her liability to Therma Builders in the civil action by operation of section 775.089(8), Florida Statutes (2003)....

...r the balance. Peterson now appeals this final summary judgment, challenging both the finding of liability and the amount of damages awarded. The trial court's finding that Peterson was liable to Therma Builders in the civil action was predicated on section 775.089(8), which reads as follows: The conviction of a defendant for an offense involving the act giving rise to restitution under this section shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of that offense in any subsequent civil proceeding....

...otherwise prevent collateral estoppel from being used in a civil action based on a prior criminal conviction. Starr Tyme, Inc. v. Cohen, 659 So.2d 1064, 1067 (Fla.1995); Stafford v. Don Reid Ford, Inc., 920 So.2d 791, 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Under section 775.089(8), a defendant who is convicted in a criminal proceeding for the conduct that forms the basis of a civil claim is estopped from challenging in the civil action those matters that were actually and necessarily adjudicated in the criminal proceeding....

...§ 817.034(4)(a)(1). In this subsequent civil action, the parties do not dispute that Peterson was convicted of scheming to defraud. In addition, the parties do not dispute that restitution was ordered as part of Peterson's sentence. Thus, by operation of section 775.089(8), Peterson was estopped in this civil action from denying that she engaged in a course of conduct with the intent to defraud Therma Builders or with the intent to obtain property from Therma Builders by the use of false or fraudulen...

...amages, we affirm the final summary judgment in favor of Therma Builders on the issue of *980 liability. [1] See J & P Transp., 750 So.2d at 753 (noting that the issue of liability in a civil theft action is properly decided by summary judgment when section 775.089(8) forms the basis of the motion for summary judgment)....

...for two reasons. First, it does not appear that the trial court properly set off the amount of the restitution award against the civil judgment. While a crime victim is entitled to pursue both a criminal restitution award and a civil damages award, section 775.089(8) specifically requires that the amount of the restitution award be set off against the civil judgment so that the victim does not receive a double recovery....

...e and remanded for recalculation. Peterson v. State, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D371, ___ So.2d ___, 2007 WL 283701 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 2, 2007). Assuming the trial court properly used the restitution order to determine the amount of the required set off under section 775.089(8), its calculations are no longer correct in light of this reversal....

...3d DCA 1993) (obligation to pay damages caused by striking a coral reef in violation of section 258.083, Florida Statutes (1991), not excluded from liability coverage as a "penalty," because it was ordered as "restitution" under the general provisions of section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1991), rather than imposed as a "civil penalt[y] for damage to coral reefs *932 in state waters" imposed under sections 253.04(1), and (3))....

...Similarly, in Thomas v. State, 486 So.2d 69 (Fla.4th DCA 1986), we held that assessment of public defender fees without notice constitutes reversible error. Finally, before restitution is imposed, a defendant is entitled to a hearing to consider the factors set forth in section 775.089(6) and (7), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...mount of restitution ordered, any amount of restitution paid, the amount of restitution due and owing, and a notation that costs, interest, penalties, and attorney’s fees may also be due and owing. The terms of the restitution order are subject to s. 775.089(5)....

...titution order, which is separate from any disposition or order of commitment, on or prior to the date that the court’s jurisdiction would cease under section [985.0301].” Further, “[t]he terms of the restitution order are subject to [section] 775.089(5),” Florida Statutes. § 985.0301(5)(i). Section 775.089(5) addresses the mechanism for enforcement of a restitution order: An order of restitution may be enforced by the state, or by a victim named in the order to receive the restitution, in the same maimer as a judgment in a civil action....

...cing the order. Finally, section 985.0301(5)(i) states what must be included in a restitution order. This includes “a notation that costs, interest, penalties, and attorney’s fees may also be due and owing.” Reading sections 985.0301(5)(i) and 775.089(5) together, we conclude that costs, interests, penalties, and attorney’s fees under section 985.0301(5)® refers to the interest, costs and attorney’s fees associated with the enforcement of a restitution order under section 775.089(5)....

...amount of restitution ordered, any amount of restitution paid, the amount of restitution due and owing, and a notation that costs, interest, penalties, and attorney's fees may also be due and owing. The terms of the restitution order are subject to s. 775.089(5)....

..."a restitution order, which is separate from any disposition or order of commitment, on or prior to the date that the court's jurisdiction would cease under section [985.0301]." Further, "[t]he terms of the restitution order are subject to [section] 775.089(5)," Florida Statutes. § 985.0301(5)(i). Section 775.089(5) addresses the mechanism for enforcement of a restitution order: An order of restitution may be enforced by the state, or by a victim named in the order to receive the restitution, in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action....

...enforcing the order. Finally, section 985.0301(5)(i) states what must be included in a restitution order. This includes "a notation that costs, interest, penalties, and attorney's fees may also be due and owing." Reading sections 985.0301(5)(i) and 775.089(5) together, we conclude that costs, interests, penalties, and attorney's fees under section 985.0301(5)(i) refers to the interest, costs and attorney's fees associated with the enforcement of a restitution order under section 775.089(5)....

...§ 316.027(2), Fla. Stat. (1987). Appellant also argues that the trial court improperly imposed restitution for damages suffered by the victims of the accident. It is true that only damages that are causally related to the crime charged may be imposed by section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...Specifically, the financial loss suffered by the victim, in the form of the monies spent by the victim for the safekeeping of her child, were directly and significantly related to the crimes proved at trial. See State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988); Section 775.089(1)(a) Florida Statutes (1993)....

...edure 3.800(a). We affirm without further discussion as Myers and the State both agree that the imposed sentence is not illegal. However, on remand, the trial judge shall amend the sentencing documents to reflect that pursuant to the 1989 version of section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes, as it relates to his conviction of first-degree murder, Myers shall be eligible for parole after serving no less than twenty-five years of his life sentence....

...ed restitution order. Once the notice of appeal was filed, the court lacked jurisdiction to amend the sentence by ordering restitution. Dailey v. State, 575 So.2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Although the absence of a restitution order in accordance with section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes, may make the sentence incomplete and subject to modification under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), such modification may not be obtained while the appeal is pending....

...Because the trial court should have held a hearing, required the State to prove the appropriate amount of restitution, and given Mr. Faurisma notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard, we must reverse the orders and remand for a de novo *498 restitution hearing. See § 775.089(7), Fla....

...we find the state's argument that the restitution issue was not preserved for review to be inapplicable in this instance. Although the record in this case is silent with respect to an objection to restitution, or to compliance with the provisions of section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1985), [2] the record does reflect that the amount ordered in this case was found in the bag at the time of the offense and was returned to the bar by the Sheriff's office....

...this opinion. MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Since appellant was convicted of two third degree felonies, he was subject to two separate concurrent or consecutive five-year terms of incarceration. See § 775.021(4), Fla. Stat. (1985). [2] § 775.089(6), Fla....

...The State does not dispute the insufficiency of the relationship between the victim's damage and loss and the offense, but argues that restitution was a condition of R.A.B.'s plea and was not required to bear a significant relationship *1229 to the convicted offense pursuant to section 775.089(1)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...titution mediation date. Furthermore, the court did not inform R.A.B. that he was waiving his right to contest restitution during the plea colloquy. Thus, the record does not establish that restitution was a condition of R.A.B.'s plea agreement, and section 775.089(1)(b)(2) does not apply....

...ion. See J.O.S. v. State, 689 So.2d 1061, 1064 (Fla. 1997); J.M. v. State, 658 So.2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order on this basis. Reversed. FULMER, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur. NOTES [1] Pursuant to section 775.089(1)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (2005), "A plea agreement may contain provisions that order restitution relating to criminal offenses committed by the defendant to which the defendant did not specifically enter a plea."

...Due process requires a formal hearing on the amount of restitution. L.S. v. State, 975 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). We reverse the restitution order and remand with instructions for the trial court to conduct a restitution hearing consistent with section 775.089(6)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes (2016). AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur. 3 

...do so. On remand, the amount should be determined after notice and hearing to set the amount. Trice v. State, 655 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The state must prove the actual amount of the loss. Hamrick v. State, 648 So.2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); § 775.089(7), Fla....

...[1] This court, and other appellate courts, have held that it is not error for the trial court to reserve jurisdiction for future determination of the amount of restitution, however, we find that it was error for the trial court to reserve jurisdiction in the present case. This court has interpreted section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1989), as allowing the reservation of jurisdiction in those cases where the damages sustained by the victim cannot be reduced to a specific amount by the time of the defendant's sentencing hearing....

...person spends in prison. In the case at bar, we hold invalid the reservation of jurisdiction. We therefore reverse the appellant's sentence as to the order of restitution. On remand the trial court shall hold a restitution hearing, as prescribed by section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1989), to determine the amount owed to the victim, if it can be reasonably ascertained at the present time....

...help find and reorganize patient files which had been lost in relation to the theft; $150 to change locks; $50 to copy documents; $50 for call-tracing fees; and $5000 for a contract with a private investigation company, Emerald Coast Investigations. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1995), requires a criminal defendant to make restitution to the victim of a crime for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense....

...Aside from the problem that incorrect information 1 was supplied by the state to the judge at the restitution hearing, a successor judge may not enter an order or judgment based upon evidence heard by the predecessor. Beattie v. Beattie, 536 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Section 775.089, Florida Statutes, 1989, is the general statute that requires restitution to victims. Its provisions are mandatory and places the onus upon the court to order the defendant to repay the victim for crimes. § 775.089(l)(a). If a court does not order restitution, section 775.089(l)(b) requires a court to state on the record in detail the reasons for noncompliance with the statute....

...irective. Florida Bar News, Vol. 18, No. 24, p. 15, Dec. 15, 1991. However, the onus of the legislative mandate is shared by the state since it has the burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by the victim as a result of an offense. § 775.089(7)....

...In fact, the only documents in the record pertaining to this issue are police reports which indicate that some of the stolen property was recovered by the police. However, there is no indication that the victims recovered all of the losses caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offenses as provided by section 775.089(1)(a)1-2 of the Florida Statutes (1995)....

...See also Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla. 1984). Moreover, the imposition of an attorney fee should not be confused with orders of restitution, which do require prior consideration of ability to pay. See Leyba v. State, 520 So.2d 705 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); § 775.089(6), Fla....

requirements mandated by the Florida legislature in section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1995), but has the potential

...On remand the trial court in this case is therefore permitted to sentence appellant as an adult or as a juvenile. Appellant in this case also correctly contends that the trial court erred by imposing restitution without first considering his financial resources and his ability to pay. See § 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1991); Mallard v....

...5th DCA 1991)(holding that the trial court did not have authority or jurisdiction to enter order requiring defendant to make restitution to victim after service of all prison *1149 time permitted by sentencing guidelines and after termination of all probation). The State argues that under section 775.089(3) of the Florida Statutes the trial court possessed jurisdiction to enter a restitution order until five years after the end of McClintoek’s term of imprisonment. We disagree. Section 775.089(3) provides in relevant part: 775.089....

...diately. If the restitution ordered by the court is not made within the time period specified, the court may continue the restitution order through the duration of the civil judgment provision set forth in subsection (5) and as provided in s. 55.10. § 775.089(3), Fla....

...public defender. The issues of restitution and supplemental fine are not properly before this court. We strike the court costs and the public defender's lien. The appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to consider, as is required by section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1985), her financial resources when imposing restitution....

...nd v. State, 629 So.2d 1057, 1057 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (rejecting defendant's argument that he should not be responsible for making restitution for property taken by others during robbery) (citing Spivey v. State, 531 So.2d 965 (Fla. 1988)); see also § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...kes, given the totality of the evidence presented, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Mr. Bradbury restitution based on the fair market value as established by the most recently offered discounted retail prices. See § 775.089(7), Fla....

...created the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund. See § 960.21, Fla. Stat. (1997). Section 960.17, Florida Statutes (1997), provides that any payment of benefits to a victim under chapter 960 "shall create an obligation of restitution in accordance with s. 775.089." In turn, section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), provides, "Payment of an award by the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund shall create an order of restitution to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund, unless specifically waived in accordance with subparagraph (b)1." However, section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1997), states, "Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence." Thus, section 775.089(7) contemplates an evidentiary hearing when there is a dispute as to restitution....

...n the appellant's battery upon the victim and the victim's loss of his sneakers. Although there may have been evidence, no evidence was presented and the trial judge ordered restitution without competent substantial evidence to support the award.... Section 775.089 contemplates an evidentiary hearing when there is a dispute as to restitution....

...Interestingly, this is precisely the opposite of the restitution process for adults, which requires the trial court to consider the defendant's ability to pay only at the time of enforcement of the restitution order, not at the time the restitution order is imposed. § 775.089(6)(b), Fla....

...appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In response, the state argued that the appeal is authorized by section 924.07(1)(k), Florida Statutes (2000), which provides that the state may appeal from "an order denying restitution under section 775.089 ." Counsel for the child contends that section 924.07(1)(k) applies only to appeals in adult criminal cases and that there is no comparable provision in Chapter 985 that would authorize an appeal from a restitution order in a juvenile case....

...At the restitution hearing the State called no witnesses but instead relied only upon documentary evidence consisting of financial data, including credit card records, a spreadsheet summarizing financial transactions, and other documents. Ms. Henry testified that the amount she misappropriated was only $112,886.87. Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2001), requires that restitution be ordered for damages or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense....

...The trial court agreed with defendant and denied the motion. The state’s subsequent motion for entry of a civil restitution lien on behalf of the victims pursuant to section 960.292 was also denied after defendant argued that the statute did not allow the state to file a civil suit for damages. Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2015) provides that “the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim.” “Section 775.089(l)(a) requires the trial court to order a defendant to make restitution for damage or loss caused by the defendant’s offense or related to the defendant’s criminal episode unless the trial court finds clear and compelling reasons not to order restitution.” Kirby v....

...la. Stat. (2007). The statute applicable to adults provides that restitution is properly awarded for "[d]amage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense" and "[d]amage or loss *716 related to the defendant's criminal episode." § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...He appeals the trial court’s order imposing restitution. We vacate the order and remand for further proceedings. Of the two issues concerning restitution which appellant raises, we find merit in only one. Appellant contends that the state failed to carry its burden of proof in this case. Section 775.089 provides, in pertinent part: (7) Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence....

...The burden of demonstrating the financial resources of the defendant and the financial needs of the defendant and his de *307 pendents is on the defendant. The burden of demonstrating such other matters as the court deems appropriate is upon the party designated by the court as justice requires. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat....

...Nevertheless, the trial court ordered the appellant to pay restitution in an amount equal to the costs incurred by the mother in procuring medical treatment for the victim. We believe the state failed to demonstrate by the preponderance of the evidence that the loss was sustained by the victim as a result of the offense. See § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat....

relationship between the offense and the loss. § 775.089, Fla. Stat. (2020). As the state failed

...impose the maximum amount charged. In accordance with its ruling, the court entered a restitution order imposing $5000 as a lien. Harris correctly argues, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a restitution hearing. Section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (2001), requires the State to prove the victim’s loss by a preponderance of the evidence to support the entry of a restitution order....

...ion. The amount of restitution was to be determined at a later hearing. After appellant filed his notice of appeal and without a hearing, the trial court entered an order which set the amount of restitution. Appellant contends this was error, citing section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1987); Amison v. State, 504 So.2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (trial court erred in imposing restitution without prior determination as to appellant’s ability to pay and consideration of other criteria of section 775.089(6)); Loeb v....

...ermine the amount of restitution; cause remanded for hearing to make that determination). The state concedes error. Accordingly, we reverse that part of appellant’s probation order regarding restitution, and remand for a hearing in accordance with section 775.089(6)....

...Second, she contends the trial court erred by ordering her to make restitution to her victim without considering her ability to pay. We find no merit to her second contention. It is the defendant’s responsibility to establish an inability to make restitution. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat....

...2d DCA 2006))). We disagree with the State's argument that M.P. failed to adequately preserve this issue for review. In a criminal case, ability to pay is considered in enforcement proceedings after the court orders restitution, see § 775.089(6), Fla....

...restitution is imposed, not merely when the court is subsequently required to enforce the order or determine whether the juvenile violated his probation."); see also J.A.B. v. State, 993 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (en banc) (noting that section 775.089(6) previously required consideration at the restitution hearing of both the victim's losses and the defendant's financial resources, that a subsequent amendment shifted the consideration of the defendant's financial resources to th...

So.2d 535, 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also § 775.089(6), Fla. Stat. (2005). Moreover, restitution for

of a restitution order in accordance with section 775.-089(l)(a), Florida Statutes, may make the sentence

...raveling to the courthouse for the first trial and waiting to be told that the defendant was not there. The defendant filed a timely appeal from the order withholding adjudication of guilt, to contest the award of restitution to Kretzer and Johnson. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes, which controls the imposition of restitution in criminal cases, states, in pertinent part: (l)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1. Damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense § 775.089(l)(a), Fla....

...The term “victim” is defined in another section of the statute as “eách person who suffers property damage or loss, monetary expense, or physical injury or death as a direct or indirect result of the defendant’s offense or criminal episode.” § '775.089(1)(0), Fla....

...Weekly D1429 (Fla. 1st DCA June 17, 1999). We withdraw this opinion and grant clarification by entering the following revised opinion. R.D. appeals a restitution order arguing that, because the order establishing the amount of restitution pursuant to section 775.089(l)(a), Fla.Stat....

...private attorney or collection agent); Fla. Stat. § 938.35 (authorizing a board of county commissioners or governing body of a municipality to refer the collection of fees, fines, or costs to which it is entitled to a private attorney or collection agent); Fla. Stat. § 775.089(12)(a) (authorizing the court to enter an income deduction order to make deductions from income paid to the defendant to meet the defendant’s restitution obligations)....

...private attorney or collection agent); Fla. Stat. § 938.35 (authorizing a board of county commissioners or governing body of a municipality to refer the collection of fees, fines, or costs to which it is entitled to a private attorney or collection agent); Fla. Stat. § 775.089(12)(a) (authorizing the court to enter an income deduction order to make deductions from income paid to the defendant to meet the defendant’s restitution obligations)....

2d at 472-73.6 A prime concern underlying section 775.089 is twofold: to give the perpetrator of a crime

necessary causal relationship required by Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), is satisfied

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 775.089, Fla....

that term is used in the restitution statute, section 775.089(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1997). See Rodriguez

...(citations omitted). “If the award, of restitution is supported by competent evidence, an appellate court should not interfere with the trial court’s, reasonable exercise of discretion.” Id. (citing Bernard v. State, 859 So.2d 560, 562 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)). Section 775.089, Florida Statutes, requires a defendant to make restitution to a victim for “[djamage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense,” and “[d]amage or loss related to' the defendant’s criminal episode.” § 775.089(l)(a)1.2.,....

...Stat. (1999). The term “victim” as used in this statute means “each person who suffers property damage -or loss, monetary expense, or physical injury or death as a direct or indirect result of the defendant’s offense or criminal episode ....”§ 775.089(l)(c), Fla....

be approved unless based on valid grounds. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1983), concerns restitution

...In reviewing an order of restitution, this court must consider whether the trial court abused its discretion. Hebert v. State, 614 So.2d 493, 494 (Fla.1993). A ruling on a question of fact must be supported by competent substantial evidence. State v. Glatzmayer, 789 So.2d 297, 301 (Fla.2001). Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2001), provides in part: In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...The State argues that because this was a battery which it describes as “an invasion of the victim’s personal space,” it was reasonably foreseeable that the appellant would pull at the victim’s shoes and clothing. However, the only evidence of what happened indicates that appellant struck the victim in the head. Section 775.089 contemplates an evidentia-ry hearing when there is a dispute as to restitution....

...s incurred when the victim was transported to the hospital. However, the state concedes error that the victim’s mother’s claim for lost wages in the sum of $240 is not permitted under the statutory restitution definition of victim, and we agree. Section 775.089(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), defines the term victim....

...injury or death as a direct or indirect result of the defendant’s offense or criminal episode, and also includes the victim’s estate if the victim is deceased, and the victim’s next of kin if the victim is deceased as a result of the offense. § 775.089(l)(c), Fla....

...5th DCA 1993) (holding restitution could not be awarded to nondeceased victim’s family members). Based upon the statute, we hold that the award of restitution in favor of the mother of the victim for lost wages is erroneous. The mother is not a victim within the meaning of section 775.089(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1997)....

...The state concedes that the trial court erred in entering a restitution order without giving the appellant the opportunity to be heard. See Johnson v. State, 547 So.2d 300 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989). The restitution order is vacated and the case is remanded for a hearing pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Stat *675 utes (1989)....

...5th DCA 1991). Additionally, the restitution order was entered as a condition of probation, although probation was not imposed as any part of Rader’s sentence. Thus, on remand, the time and manner of payment of the restitution should be clarified. See § 775.089(3), Fla....

...The testimony merely indicated this was the amount the insurance company reimbursed San Antonio Lumber for the burglary losses. There was no testimony concerning the number or kind of items taken during the burglary or the number or kind of items included in the $4,310.74 restitution amount. Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), provides for the payment of restitution by a defendant for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by his offense....

...State, 616 So.2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (holding that because damages suffered by the victim from an automobile accident are not caused by the juvenile’s offense, leaving the scene of an accident, it is error to require the parent to pay restitution under section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), which requires proof of “a causal or significant relationship between the offense ......

...e amount of $5,376.00. The court ordered restitution in this amount, with an additional $500.00 restitution for interest to date. A court may order restitution for a victim’s losses “caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense.” § 775.089(1), Fla....

...We hold that Landmark’s loss in the form of interest due to the Internal Revenue Service was not directly or indirectly connected to Ms. Weisman’s criminal act, nor was there a substantial relationship between the crime and the damages suffered. § 775.089(1), Fla....

...All of those points are without merit, therefore, we find his trial was properly conducted and we affirm the judgment of guilt. Appellant’s remaining point on appeal has merit. The crime of which appellant was convicted occurred on September 22, 1984. The law concerning restitution in effect at the time was section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...Blanco on the negligent entrustment claim and granted the motion to estop the Blancos from denying the essential elements of aggravated battery. Then, acting on its own volition, the court entered judgment on the vicarious liability claim in favor of Ms. Blanco. In so ruling, the court cited sections 772.14 and 775.089, Florida Statutes (2020), for the proposition that because Mr....

...s chapter . . . shall estop the defendant in any action brought pursuant to this chapter as to all matters as to which such judgment or decree would be an estoppel as if the plaintiff had been a party in the criminal action. Section 775.089(8), Florida Statutes, which is part of the Florida Criminal Code, similarly reads: The conviction of a defendant for an offense involving the act giving rise to restitution under this section shall estop the defend...

...that the statutes operated defensively to prevent Mr. Sager from arguing his injuries were the result of negligence or advancing any other factual theory that draws support from the evidence. See Sun Chevrolet, Inc. v. Crespo, 613 So. 2d 105, 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (holding that section 775.089(8), Florida Statutes, “applies to a criminal defendant only” and cannot be used “to exercise collateral estoppel offensively”). Further, to the extent the trial court read Burch as imposing a blanket prohibition on v...

...On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in awarding restitution because he is unable to pay and because the evidence was insufficient to establish the amount of restitution. In Hawthorne v. State, 558 So.2d 156, 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), this court held: Although Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), requires the court to consider “the financial resources of the defendant, the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents,” subsection (7) clearly provides that the burden of demonstrating such financial resources and needs is on the defendant....

...Defendant objected below and argues here that the requirement that she pay restitution ordered in an earlier prosecution as a condition of probation violates double jeopardy. 3 The state has ignored defen *598 dant’s double jeopardy argument and argues simply that the restitution order was permissible under section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1987), which permits a judge to order restitution to the victim for “damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense.......

...g the scene of the accident. State v. Williams suggests that an order requiring a defendant to pay restitution for damages caused by other criminal acts, although involving identical charges, would run afoul of the causation requirement set forth in section 775.089(1)....

...The basis of the Anderson decision was the lack of a causal link between defendant’s conviction in the case under review and the damages sustained by the two victims in the other case. Id. at 1289 . In Cogdell , this court rejected the Anderson court’s reasoning, finding the *599 language of section 775.089(1)(a) as amended in 1985 broadened the trial court’s authority to impose restitution....

...llegedly stolen from the victim’s home at the same time the car was stolen. See also Faulkner v. State, 582 So.2d 783 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). In a divided opinion in its Williams case, the First District sidestepped the “causation” requirement of section 775.089(1) and the supreme court’s decision in State v....

non-payment of restitution. Under the provisions of section 775.-089(l)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1991), the

...re rides, but they were still — that was still an expense, looking for the trailer. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court awarded the victim his claim for $5,395 in restitution, including the $500 “rough estimate” for gas and time. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1995), provides that the trial court shall order a criminal defendant to make restitution to the victim for “[d]amage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense”....

provide a basis for a restitution award. See § 775.089(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). However, if the amount

...heard and to dispute the amount of restitution. In State v. Sanderson, 625 So. 2d 471, 473 (Fla. 1993), the Florida Supreme Court held that an order of restitution must be imposed at sentencing or within sixty days thereafter, in accordance with Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)....

...The State counters that a trial court enjoys discretion in assessing restitution and that the information, by referencing “miscellaneous items,” was broad enough to encompass the utility charges incurred by the victim. The restitution statute, section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2003) provides in pertinent part: In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...); see also A.G. v. State, 718 So.2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that even though restitution was ordered under the juvenile statute, restitution in juvenile cases is treated the same as restitution under the criminal code and thus, pursuant to section 775.089, restitution includes not only damages caused directly or indirectly by the offense, but also includes the damages related to the criminal episode); Triplett v....

episode, we reverse the restitution order. Section 775.089(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995) states: [T]he court

...He appeals an order imposing restitution for items stolen in a burglary the following morning at the same location. Because Appellant's attempted burglary did not directly or indirectly cause the items to be stolen, and the stolen items were not related to Appellant's criminal episode, we reverse the restitution order. Section 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1988)(the court cannot impose restitution for damages which transpired independent of the crime), and Glaubius v. State, 688 So.2d 913, 916 (Fla.1997)(holding that significant due process concerns regarding the validity of section 775.089 would be raised if the trial court required the defendant to "pay a sum in excess of the amount of damages his criminal conduct caused the victim")....

...We would note that the State could have included the amount of restitution for the morning burglary in Appellant's plea agreement. A plea agreement may contain provisions that order restitution relating to criminal offenses committed by the defendant to which the defendant did not specifically enter a plea. Section 775.089(1)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1995)....

exceed the length of defendant’s probation. See § 775.089(3)(b)l., Fla.Stat. (1993); Starks v. State, 658

...s were incurred during the attempted murder of which she was acquitted, and not during the robbery. The trial court disagreed and ordered her to pay restitution for the victim’s injuries pursuant to section 775.-089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1985). Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), provides that an order of restitution is appropriate when the loss to the victim is caused “directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense.” As a prerequisite to the entry of such an order, the...

...lance being probation. 2 Appellant received a year in county jail, and was ordered to pay $1,540,000 restitution. An order of restitution is appropriate when the loss to the victim is caused “directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense.” § 775.089(l)(a), Fla.Stat....

was pending, the trial court, pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1993), entered a written

...Competent substantial evidence must be more than mere speculation. Soriano v. State, 968 So. 2d 112, 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913, 916 (Fla. 1997)). The State bears the burden of proving the amount of loss by a preponderance of the evidence. § 775.089(7)(c), Fla....

...The prosecutor orally moved to modify probation requesting that the court order appellant to pay restitution to the insurance company. The court granted the motion. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in modifying the probation to order payment of restitution to the insurance company under section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2001)....

properly considered the factors set forth in section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1991), and that it was

...nt and the dashboard repair. The restitution order as to the radio/GPS replacement and the dashboard repair is based on *1263 mere speculation. We reach this conclusion after applying the restitution statute and pertinent case law to the facts here. Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), provides, in pertinent part: In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1. Damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense; and 2. Damage or loss related to the defendant’s criminal episode, unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...in satisfaction of its judgment shall concurrently satisfy the restitution *1231 obligation owed to said defendant by plaintiff established by restitution order entered in State of Florida v. Kenneth L. Schummer, Case No.1992-CF-005096A, Circuit Court, Escambia County, Florida. See § 775.089(8), Fla....

...o Appellant as of January 30, 2003. Because the setoffs were not "amounts paid to or collected by" Gulf Coast, they had no effect on the $22,759 in restitution Appellant must pay to Gulf Coast as a result of the criminal proceedings. But pursuant to section 775.089(8) and the final judgment in the civil proceedings, Appellant is entitled to concurrently satisfy his obligations under the civil judgment and the restitution order....

...The State sought restitution for the loss of the Gator cart, which was apparently never recovered. G.C. objected and argued that there was no nexus between the trespass charges to which he pleaded and damages for the loss of the Gator cart. When established by a preponderance of the evidence, § 775.089(7), *1100 Fla. Stat. (2004), restitution is awarded for damage or loss “caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense” and “related to the defendant’s criminal episode,” § 775.089(l)(a)....

...admitted only to entering or remaining in the vehicle without permission. See § 810.08(1). He did not admit to grand theft, and in the plea deal the State abandoned that charge without securing G.C.’s agreement to pay restitution for the victim’s loss occasioned by the theft of the Gator cart. See § 775.089(l)(b)(2) (“A plea agreement may contain provisions that order restitution relating to criminal offenses committed by the defendant to which the defendant did not specifically enter a plea.”)....

...However, when American Express informed Badcock that the payment was un-collectible, Badcock debited McLeod’s account. McLeod pleaded nolo contendere to grand theft. A defendant is responsible to make restitution for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense. See § 775.089(l)(a), Fla....

PER CURIAM. Sua sponte, we dismiss this appeal by the state from the final order denying Defendant’s restitution in a juvenile proceeding. Although the criminal statutes now provide the state may appeal an order denying restitution under section 775.089, see § 924.07(l)(k), Fla.Stat....

...Ultimately, the trial court issued an order setting restitution for the television at $600. II. In determining restitution, the State bears the burden to prove the amount of loss by the greater weight of the evidence. See DJR v. State, 139 So.3d 458, 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); § 775.089(7), Fla....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 775.089, Fla. Stat. (1989).

jeopardized by vacating the theft conviction. Under section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), a sentencing

...A.M. also argues that the juvenile court erred in requiring him to pay $14,036.34 in restitution to the victim of the battery in its order on count II. A.M. contends that the restitution to the victim is not related to his criminal mischief offense. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2004), requires that a court order a defendant to pay restitution for: “1....

$2,566.32 was not a “loss” as required by section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1997). That section provides

...t $51,000. While Jackson stipulated that he would pay Mr. Gollett restitution in the amount of $12,710, the appraised fair market value of the home based on Mr. Gollett’s testimony, the court ordered Jackson to pay Mr. Gollett $51,000. We reverse. Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1997) provides for restitution “caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense.” The State must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a significant relationship existed between the loss and the defendant’s actions....

Appellant’s objections, the trial court, relying on section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2022), issued an order granting

...Also at the hearing below, the court deferred monthly payment of restitution until the child finishes school or turns 18. The court properly overruled LM.’s objection that restitution should not be imposed at all, because the child did not have the ability to pay. Under section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (2005), the defendant’s ability to pay must be determined at the time the restitution order is being enforced, not when it is imposed....

...d a hearing to properly determine the amount. Hamrick, 648 So. 2d at 276. In determining the proper amount, the court must consider several factors, “including the loss by the victim and the appellant’s ability to pay restitution.” Id. (citing § 775.089(6), Fla....

...RIAM. We affirm. Appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error in the points raised on appeal. However, we remand for the trial court to correct the written order of probation so that it reflects the court-imposed restitution requirement. See § 775.089(1)(a), Fla.Stat....

restitution to the victim in the amount of $100.00. Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in part:

PER CURIAM. We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences. However, the trial court’s Amendment to Judgment which orders appellant to pay $1,500 in restitution pursuant to section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1981), is stricken since the trial court failed to consider the appellant’s ability to *443 pay, his financial resources, or the burden that payment would impose upon him....

...In order for us to reject Bass’s challenge, there must be record evidence sufficient to support a finding that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that $131 was included in the amount for which Bass was required to make restitution. See § 775.089(7), Fla....

...He contends that the state failed to present sufficient evidence of the RV’s value to support either his second degree grand theft conviction or the $21,000 restitution order. He also argues that the court should have conducted a restitution hearing to consider the factors listed in section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992). Finally, he maintains that the state failed to present sufficient evidence of appellant’s intent to support the conviction. First, we agree with appellant that the court failed to conduct a restitution hearing to consider the factors listed in section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992)....

...lementary School for 100 hours at the rate of $10 per hour. We hold that the state proved the amount of restitution by a preponderance of the evidence, with the exception of the amount awarded for the value of the broken window ($125 or 12.5 hours). § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat....

restitution to the victim’s family. We agree. Section 775.089(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1991) states: (c)

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 775.089(l)(a), Fla.Stat....

...The term includes governmental entities and political subdivisions, . . . when such entities are a direct victim of the defendant’s offense or criminal episode and not merely providing public services in response to the offense or criminal episode. § 775.089(1)(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2022) (emphasis added). In Anglin, we interpreted section 775.089(1)(c)1. to require that a government agency must be both a “direct victim” of a crime and “not be ‘merely providing public services in response to’ the crime.” 369 So. 3d at 1170 (quoting § 775.089(1)(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2019)). We distinguished this from a person entitled to restitution who may still recover even though the person is harmed as a “direct or indirect result of the defendants offense . . . .” Id. (quoting § 775.089(1)(c)1., Fla....

...(2019)). The SATC satisfies neither of these requirements. First, the SATC is not a direct victim of appellant’s crime of sexual battery. Secondly, the SATC was “merely providing public services in response to the offense or criminal episode.” See § 775.089(1)(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2022). After the crime, detectives took the victim to the SATC, where a nurse examined the victim and collected samples. The SATC is not a victim entitled to restitution pursuant to section 775.089(1)(c)1. We thus affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence, including the costs. We reverse and vacate the judgment of restitution. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. CONNER and ARTAU, JJ., concur....

...Under the restitution statute involved in this case, the trial court “shall order” restitution for (1) damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense, and (2) damage or loss related to the defendant’s criminal episode. See § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

in which she was a passenger. We reverse. Section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1991) provides that a

...Since 1984, when the restitution statute was amended to provide that the court “shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim,” restitution is mandated, and the defendant is on notice that it will be considered as a part of every sentence. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...of $1460. We agree. The trial court imposed restitution without any mention of the amount of restitution, the manner in *910 which restitution was determined, or the appellant’s ability to pay. Hamrick v. State, 648 So.2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); § 775.089(6), Fla.Stat....

apparently was in the amount of $40. While section 775.-089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), requires a

...(1991) (provision for making restitution a condition of probation or community control). We conclude that a preponderance of the evidence in the record supports the $98,642.00 figure as the amount of “loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense[s]” of grand theft and dealing in stolen property. § 775.089(l)(a), (6) & (7), Fla.Stat....

...probation officer the responsibility for setting a restitution schedule. We agree with Appellant on both points, and are constrained to vacate the order of restitution and to remand the case for further proceedings conforming to the requirements of section 775.089, Florida Statutes....

...5th DCA 1988) (vacating portion of sentence ordering restitution, and remanding for consideration of ability to pay); Ballance v. State, 447 So.2d 974, 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (determination of restitution *801 amount and defendant’s ability to pay are non-delegable judicial responsibilities). Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes, states: The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense, the financial resources...

...dant’s ability to pay). It will be Appellant’s burden on remand to demonstrate her “present financial resources,” “the absence of [her] potential future financial resources,” and “the financial needs” of Appellant and her dependents. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat....

...See § 948.06, Fla.Stat. (1991) (affording probationer an opportunity to prove lack of financial resources to pay, despite good-faith efforts to acquire the necessary resources); Nix, 604 So.2d at 921-22 ; Bass v. State, 473 So.2d 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes, sets out the procedure to be followed on remand: the trial court must determine initially “whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution,” but only after considering, inter alia, Appellant�...

Spivey held: Prior to the 1984 amendment, section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1983) provided that the

...Oliver challenges the circuit court’s order requiring him to pay $10,741.74 in restitution and $130 in investigative costs as conditions of his probation. Oliver argues, and the State acknowledges, that the State did not meet its burden in demonstrating the amount of loss to be compensated for by restitution. § 775.089(7), Fla....

...ition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1. Damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense; and 2. Damage or loss related to the defendant’s criminal episode.... § 775.089(l)(a), Fla.Stat....

...ue of the offense which a defendant is found to have committed. In particular, we note that the state is obliged to establish the amount of restitution only by the greater weight of the evidence, rather than to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat....

...The state had the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the victims’ claims were directly or indirectly caused by the commission of the offense in question. State v. *862 Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988); Fresneda v. State, 347 So.2d 1021 (Fla.1977); § 775.089, Fla.Stat....

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Gladfelter v. State, 618 So.2d 1364 (Fla.1993); State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993); § 775.089(3)(b)(2), Fla.Stat....

imposed restitution upon appellant pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1991). However, there was

the restitution statute applies to his case. § 775.089, Fla.Stat. (1983); Scurry v. State, 490 So.2d

restitution prior to imposing such an order. See § 775.089(6), Fla.Stat. (1993); Burch v. State, 617 So.2d

...Appellant was arrested and confessed that he was selling the property for a friend. In case 89-468, appellant pled nolo conten-dere and was sentenced to five years in the Department of Corrections, to be followed by three years’ probation. The trial court entered a restitution order pursuant to Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1989), requiring appellant to pay $3,341 for unrecov-ered property stolen during the same burglary that the property he was dealing in was stolen....

...� between the juvenile’s offenses and the victim’s loss. For the reasons we will explain, we conclude that the reasoning of G.C. does not apply to the circumstances presented by the instant case. The general statute governing restitution awards, section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2006), 1 provides in part: (l)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...occurred. Lowe and another witness testified that T.J.N. was not fighting with Matt Lucia on the right side of the truck. Therefore, the State did not prove that the right-side damage was caused by the batteries for which T.J.N. was adjudicated. See § 775.089(l)(a)(l) (providing for restitution for “[d]amage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense”). The State did, however, prove that the damage was related to T.J.N.’s criminal episode. See § 775.089(l)(a)(2) (providing for restitution for “[djamage or loss related to the defendant’s criminal episode”)....

...State, 500 So.2d 125 (Fla.1986), which held the failure to conduct a Richardson hearing to determine whether a Brady violation has occurred, constitutes per se reversible error. Appellant also contends the trial court erred when it ordered restitution without a determination of appellant’s ability to pay as required by section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1987)....

victim and her children without complying with section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2022). We disagree with

authority to order restitution pursuant to section 775.-089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991). The statute

...to section 960.293, Florida Statutes. “We review a trial court’s restitution order for an abuse of discretion.” Prinz v. State, 149 So. 3d 65, 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citing Thompson v. State, 68 So. 3d 425, 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)). Section 775.089, Florida Statutes, requires the trial court to consider the amount of loss and the defendant’s ability to pay. § 775.089(6)(a)–(b), Fla....

...ven though business was good and the business normally met, or came close to its sales targets. The busi *744 ness wound up with a loss position for the year. * The standard of proof in a restitution hearing is the preponderance of the evidence. See § 775.089(7), Fla....

...sed solely on the victim’s “estimates.” See Glaubius v. State, 688 So.2d 913 (Fla.1997). Anderson v. State, 703 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). REVERSED and REMANDED. GOSHORN and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . § 812.014(2)(c)(l), Fla. Stat. (1993). . § 775.089(l)(a)l, Fla....

...llant’s remaining two challenges to that section as applied to him. Appellant next contends that it was error for the court to order him to make restitution to the insurance company because the insurance company is not a “victim” as defined in section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...On appeal the State concedes that the evidence was insufficient to support the restitution award. In a restitution hearing the State has the burden to prove by the preponderance of the evidence and with competent, substantial evidence the amount of the victim’s loss. See § 775.089(7), Fla....

...2d DCA 1987) (the insurance company is sub-rogated to the rights of the victim and restitution can be ordered for the full amount of loss irrespective of reimbursement to the victim). However, Jarawdi correctly asserts that the trial court erred in failing to consider his ability to pay the restitution amount, as required by section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1987)....

PER CURIAM. The trial court order imposing $7,000 restitution in this cause is affirmed based on a holding that: (1) the subject order was entered, not as a condition of probation, but as an independent restitution order pursuant to Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994) and, as such, is payable within five years after the date of sentencing on June 21, 1994, § 775.089(3)(b)(3), Fla.Stat....

the amount of the loss sustained by any victim. § 775.089(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). Additionally, the statute

...ctims as a condition of sentence. Section 39.054 addresses generally a court’s power of disposition in juvenile proceedings, while subsection (1)(f) specifically provides the authority to order restitution which a court may do in its discretion. 5 Section 775.089 is a restitution statute which is part of Florida’s Criminal Code....

...inal episode. 7 Therefore, once a juvenile defendant is adjudicated delinquent or an adult defendant found guilty, restitution is an appropriate sanction for juveniles under section 39.054(l)(f) and a mandatory sanction for criminal defendants under section 775.089(l)(a)....

...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). In State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1988), we interpreted section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), 9 a substantially similar predecessor to the 1995 version of section 775.089(l)(a) at issue in this case. In concluding that restitution may only be ordered if a causal relationship exists between the offense and the damage or loss, we stated that the substantial relationship test from J.S.H. should work in conjunction with section 775.089(l)(a)....

...EA AGREEMENT EXPRESSLY LEAVES THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION TO THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT? The defendants in Hebert had been charged with third-degree grand theft, but pled guilty to petit theft under a plea agreement which left restitution under section 775.089(l)(a) expressly to the trial court’s discretion....

...itution amounts to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at the criminal proceedings in cases where the defendant’s alleged offense is defined by reference to a dollar amount. Id. The First District concluded that such a position would conflict with section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), which states that the burden of proof in establishing the amount of restitution is by a preponderance of the evidence....

...In so doing, we do not limit trial courts’ discretion on the amount of restitution to only those plea *1065 agreements which expressly so provide. Thus, we answer the question we left unanswered in Hebert . Applying the substantial relationship test from J.S.H. to section 39.054(1)® and section 775.089(l)(a) will allow courts to order restitution greater than a maximum dollar value defining an offense for which a defendant is adjudicated guilty....

....H. as applied to section 39.11(l)(g) is equally applicable to its successor statute, section 39.054(1)®. Furthermore, consistent with our decision in Williams , we likewise apply the “significant relationship” test to criminal defendants under section 775.089(l)(a) which requires a court to order a defendant to make restitution for damage or loss “caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense” and “related to the defendant’s criminal episode.” Therefore, since we hav...

...he decision below. It is so ordered. OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. .We rephrase the certified question to make clear that its answer is equally applicable under both section 39.054(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1995) and section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1995)....

...The question certified by the First District uses the phrase "for which a child is adjudicated a delinquent child.” We rephrase this passage to read "for which a defendant is adjudicated guilty” because there is nothing in either section 39.054(l)(f) or section 775.089(l)(a) which would require a different answer to the certified question for juvenile and adult proceedings....

...make restitution in money, through a promissory note cosigned by the child’s parent or guardian, or in kind for any damage or loss caused by the child’s offense in a reasonable amount or manner to be determined by the court. (Emphasis added). . Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...itution to the victim for: 1. Damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense; and 2. Damage or loss related to the defendant's criminal episode, unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution. . Section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...The statute read 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. § 775.089(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985). .The 1995 version of section 775.089(l)(a)2 includes an additional restitutionary obligation for "damage or loss related to the defendant’s criminal episode" which was not present in the 1985 version of the statute.

supports restitution. Williams, 520 So.2d at 277; § 775.089(l)(b)2, Fla.Stat. (1993). William M. Longshore

present and future ability to pay restitution.2 See § 775.089(6) & (7), Fla. Stat. (1993). See and compare Oliverio

...Because the record clearly indicates the defendant’s present and potential inability to pay the ordered restitution, and the trial court noted this inability in the record, that order is stricken. Medina v. State, 591 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Green v. State, 571 So.2d 571, 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); see also § 775.089(6), Fla.Stat....

...nable amount or manner to be determined by the court.” While this particular statutory provision does not appear to have been expressly construed, we have for guidance the decisions relating to the similarly worded counterpart for adult offenders, Section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1981), which allows a court to order a “defendant to make restitution to the aggrieved party for damage or loss caused by the defendant’s offense, if the defendant is able or will be able to make such restitution.” In a long line of cases, the Florida courts have held that a condition of restitution cannot require payment in excess of the amount of damage the criminal conduct caused the victim under the aegis of Section 775.089(1)....

...based, and the second is whether the trial court improperly coerced appellant to agree to *571 the restitution as a way of showing remorse. We find that the court erred in both respects. With regard to the trial court’s imposition of restitution, section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2015), provides, in relevant part: (l)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence. The burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense is on the state attorney. § 775.089, Fla....

...(quoting Gilileo, 923 So. 3d at 614). Section 985.437(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2023), allows the consideration of hearsay evidence in determining restitution, provided the court "finds that the hearsay evidence has a minimal indicia of reliability." See also § 775.089(7)(c), Fla....

...Beall’s Outlet for the investigative costs which it incurred in uncovering Glaubius’s wrongdoing and determining the extent of the loss. Because we conclude that a victim’s investigative costs may constitute a proper item for restitution under section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1993), we affirm....

...The trial court awarded Beall’s $1,600 in investigative costs as restitution. We agree with the state that the investigative costs in question were incurred by Beall’s as a “direct or indirect” result of appellant’s criminal offense. See § 775.089(l)(a), Fla....

...ing to breach of contract damages), and (2) the element of causation is likened to the proximate causation requirement in tort (which is generally limited to damages caused directly by the tort), standards more restrictive than the clear language of Section 775.089(l)(a), Fla.Stat....

...However, the record indicates that the state did not seek restitution based upon the loss of the truck, and the victim’s testimony did not establish any connection between the sale of the truck at a loss and the theft. Also, the trial court erred in refusing to consider defendant’s ability to pay. See § 775.089(6), Fla.Stat....

may be a “victim” as that term is used in section 775.089, Florida Statutes. My separate opinion in this

open the possibility of a civil remedy under section 775.089(5). AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. STONE

to point out that the restitution statute, section 775.089(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), as interpreted

...addition to any prison term a court may impose. See also 960.25, Fla. Stat. (1983). Nash v. State, 434 So.2d 33, 34 (Fla. 2d DCA), petition for review denied, 438 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1983). However, the trial court did err in imposing restitution under section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1983), without notice and an opportunity to be heard. We recognize that advance notice and hearing before the imposition of restitution is no longer required under section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.), which became effective October 1, 1984. However, appellant committed his crime in August of 1984, therefore the 1983 version of section 775.089, *225 which requires notice and hearing, applies to this case....

...Instead, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Cohen on his counterclaim in the amount of $7,989.49. This amount was then offset by certain credit card and other charges leaving Cohen a judgment in the net amount of $4,591.36. Appellant argues sections 772.14 and 775.089(8), Florida Statutes (1991), preclude appellee’s recovery in the civil action....

...criminal proceeding under chapter 895, shall estop the defendant in any action brought pursuant to this chapter as to all matters as to which such judgment or decree would be an es-toppel as if the plaintiff had been a party in the criminal action. 775.089 Restitution.— [[Image here]] (8) The conviction of a defendant for an offense involving the act giving rise to restitution under this section shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of that offense in any subsequent civil proceeding.......

...A guilty plea, on the other hand, is deemed an admission by the defendant of all facts contained in the information. See Paterno v. Fernandez, 569 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), review denied, 581 So.2d 1309 (Fla.1991). One who pleads guilty or is found guilty by a jury has been “convicted” under the provisions of section 775.089(8) even in the absence of an adjudication. Smith v. Bartlett, 570 So.2d 360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), review denied, 581 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1991). We agree with the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3664 (e) (1985) 1 , the federal counterpart to section 775.089(8), Florida Statutes....

...Therefore, we certify the following question to the Supreme Court of Florida: WHETHER A DEFENDANT WHO PLEADS NOLO CONTENDERE IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM SEEKING AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF OR DEFENDING A CLAIM IN A SUBSEQUENT CIVIL ACTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 772.14' *602 AND 775.089(8), FLORIDA STATUTES (1991)? AFFIRMED....

...l sentence. Appellee relies on this court’s opinion in State v. Martin, 577 So.2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Appellee contends that the trial court here did not impose an illegal sentence. Rather, the trial court entered an order which complies with section 775.089(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), by setting forth the reasons for denying restitution....

...Grice v. State, 528 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). As the State does not view the trial court’s reasons as clear or compelling, it argues that MacLeod’s sentence is illegal. Restitution is required under these circumstances under both sections 775.089(1)(a) and 775.-089(2)....

...e permitted total prison sanctions will be left to impose in the event the defendant violates conditions attached to probation imposed as to the other offense. *972 The legislature has also legislated on the subject of restitution in criminal cases. Section 775.089(3)(a), Florida Statutes, in effect provides that the court may require the defendant to make restitution within a specified period, the end of which shall not be later than the end of probation if probation is ordered....

...The original guidelines scoresheet should have been used with a one cell bump-up for the violation of probation. [2] Rule 3.701 d.1.; Foster v. State, 576 So.2d 937 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). [3] See also section 948.032, Florida Statutes, which provides that if a defendant is placed on probation, any restitution ordered under section 775.089 shall be a condition of such probation and probation may be revoked if the defendant fails to comply with such order.

...Donald Payne challenges the amount of restitution imposed after he pleaded no contest to one count of felony battery. We agree that the State failed to prove that the victim’s damages were caused by Payne’s offense or were directly related to *622 the criminal episode. See § 775.089(l)(a), Fla....

...s a debt due and owing to the state by any person found, in a civil, criminal, or juvenile court proceeding in which he or she is a party, to have committed such criminal act. Such payment shall create an obligation of restitution in accordance with s. 775.089. (emphasis supplied). Section 775.089(l)(a) states that “[pjayment of an award by the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund shall create an order of restitution to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund, unless specifically waived in accordance with sub-paragraph (b)l.” Curiously, subparagraph (b)l. does not discuss waiver but instead provides that “[i]f the court does not order restitution, or orders restitution of only a portion of the damages, as provided in this section, it shall state on the record in detail the reasons therefor.” § 775.089(l)(b)(l)....

...nt is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he or she objects). While Payne did receive a restitution hearing, the State’s evidence did not meet its burden of establishing that the amounts the Trust Fund paid were connected to Payne’s crime. See § 775.089(7)....

...The trial court ordered appellant to pay restitution based upon the replacement cost, not the fair market value, of the stereo equipment. Appellant argues that this was error because the equipment was at least two years old. 1 This argument lacks merit. Section 775.089(1)(a), (6), Florida Statutes (1991) provides in pertinent part: (l)(a) 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.......

...tatutes (1995), of the amount of restitution that the “child and the parent or guardian could reasonably be expected to pay or make.” See A.J. v. State, 677 So.2d 935, 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Unlike restitution as part of adult probation, where section 775.089 imposes no duty on the trial court to make affirmative findings of ability to pay before ordering restitution, Schotsch v....

...4th DCA 1996), section 39.054(l)(a)l provides that the amount of restitution in a juvenile proceeding “may not exceed” the financial capabilities of the offender and the parents. Due to the youth of the offender, Chapter 39 imposes this limitation on the restitution required by section 775.089 Florida Statutes (1995)....

...n of those items of restitution and of the restitution award as a whole under section 39.054(l)(a)l. FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. . The criminal restitution statute also broadly defines the type of loss that is compensable through restitution. Section 775.089(l)(c) defines a "victim” as each person who suffers "property damage or loss, monetary expense, or physical injury or death as a direct or indirect result of the defendant’s offense or criminal episode.” . § 775.089(5), Fla....

...From this order, the State now appeals.1 The State argues the trial court misapprehended the law when it limited restitution to the minimum amount of the monetary value range determined by the jury. It argues the trial court should have used the “significant relationship” test under section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2012)....

...1st DCA 1997). 2That argument has been rejected by our decision in Roberson v. State, 975 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006). 2  Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2012), provides the answer to the first question: (1)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1. Damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense; and 2. Damage or loss related to the defendant’s criminal episode, unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution. § 775.089(1)(a)1.–2., Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). This statutory provision creates the “significant relationship test.” See J.O.S. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1061, 1064 (Fla. 1997). Section 775.089(7) further provides that “[a]ny dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence.” § 775.089(7), Fla....

...We strike the amount of restitution and remand so that the trial court may order restitution in an amount which is reasonably within the defendant’s present or potential future ability to pay. See Medina v. State, 591 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); § 775.089(6), Fla.Stat....

...The evidence established that sometime after Coldtrain was hit by Nance, defendant drew a knife and told Sabitini and Levy to “get back.” The evidence did not show that Coldtrain’s injuries were directly or indirectly caused by defendant’s assault upon Levy and Sabitini. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1991) provides, “[T]he 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 clear and compelling reasons...

...Although the record supports the proposition that Ms. White paid as much as she was able to pay, there remains an outstanding balance on the restitution order which is owed to Sears Roebuck. As previously stated, the trial court reduced the unpaid amount to a judgment, see § 775.089(3), Fla....

...3 from denying the essential elements of aggravated battery. Then, acting on its own volition, the court entered judgment on the vicarious liability claim in favor of Ms. Blanco. In so ruling, the court cited sections 772.14 and 775.089, Florida Statutes (2020), for the proposition that because Mr....

...s chapter . . . shall estop the defendant in any action brought pursuant to this chapter as to all matters as to which such judgment or decree would be an estoppel as if the plaintiff had been a party in the criminal action. Section 775.089(8), Florida Statutes, which is part of the Florida Criminal Code, similarly reads: The conviction of a defendant for an offense involving the act giving rise to restitution under this section shall estop the defend...

...Sager from arguing his 8 injuries were the result of negligence or advancing any other factual theory that draws support from the evidence. See Sun Chevrolet, Inc. v. Crespo, 613 So. 2d 105, 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (holding that section 775.089(8), Florida Statutes, “applies to a criminal defendant only” and cannot be used “to exercise collateral estoppel offensively”). Further, to the extent the trial court read Burch as imposing a blanket prohibition on v...

lack of financial resources as required under section 775.089(6), Fla.Stat. (1993),1 the record shows that

light of the fact that effective May 8, 1995, section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes, was amended to provide

...that time, the vessel was a functioning sailboat — it was rigged with a mast, boom, and sails. However, at the time of the theft, the vessel did not have a motor, and it could not function as a sailboat because there was no mast, boom, or sails. . Section 775.089(8), Florida Statutes (2006), provides in part: "An order of restitution hereunder will not bar any subsequent civil *701 remedy or recovery, but the amount of such restitution shall be set off against any subsequent independent civil recovery.” See Peterson v. Thermo. Builders, Inc., 958 So.2d 977, 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("While a crime victim is entitled to pursue both a criminal restitution award and a civil damages award, section 775.089(8) specifically requires that the amount of the restitution award be set off against the civil judgment so that the victim does not receive a double recovery.")....

...to make restitution in *528 the amount of $412.14 to her former employer as reimbursement for mortgage payments. There is no evidence in the record showing that the loss of $412.14 was caused directly or indirectly by appellant’s criminal offense. § 775.089(1)(a), F.S....

...Upon review, the trial court ordered restitution in the amount of $1,279. C.T.H. challenges this ruling, arguing that the restitution order must be reversed because the State failed to demonstrate how the awarded restitution was related to the instant trespass charge. We agree. Section 775.089(l)(a)l and 2, Florida Statutes (2002) authorizes the trial court to order a defendant to pay restitution as follows: 775.089....

...Compensation Trust Fund pursuant to chapter 960. Payment of an award by the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund shall create an order of restitution to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund, unless specifically waived in accordance with subpara-graph (b)l. § 775.089(1)(a)1 and 2, Fla....

...Upon review, the trial court ordered restitution in the amount of $1,279. C.T.H. challenges this ruling, arguing that the restitution order must be reversed because the State failed to demonstrate how the awarded restitution was related to the instant trespass charge. We agree. Section 775.089(1)(a)1 and 2, Florida Statutes (2002) authorizes the trial court to order a defendant to pay restitution as follows: 775.089....

...s Compensation Trust Fund pursuant to chapter 960. Payment of an award by the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund shall create an order of restitution to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund, unless specifically waived in accordance with subparagraph (b)1. § 775.089(1)(a)1 and 2, Fla....

...The court, pursuant to the requirement of section 775.-089(2), Florida Statutes (1993), assessed restitution against McCray in the amount of the medical and funeral expenses. McCray claims that the court erred in not properly considering those factors required by section 775.089(6) relating to his financial resources and his present and potential future financial needs and earning ability....

...Timmins submitted a “motion to enforce restitution order and for order of collection,” requesting that the court order the Department of Corrections to seize any money in Schlosser’s prison account and dispense that money toward satisfaction of the restitution order. See § 775.089(ll)(b), Fla.Stat....

...The State does not dispute the insufficiency of the relationship between the victim’s damage and loss and the offense, but argues that restitution was a condition of R.A.B.’s plea and was not required to bear a significant relationship *1229 to the convicted offense pursuant to section 775.089(l)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...tution mediation date. Furthermore, the court did not inform R.A.B. that he was waiving his right to contest restitution during the plea colloquy. Thus, the record does not establish that restitution was a condition of R.A.B.’s plea agreement, and section 775.089(l)(b)(2) does not apply....

...restitution. See J.O.S. v. State, 689 So.2d 1061 , 1064 (Fla.1997); J.M. v. State, 658 So.2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order on this basis. Reversed. FULMER, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur. . Pursuant to section 775.089(l)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (2005), "A plea agreement may contain provisions that order restitution relating to criminal offenses committed by the defendant to which the defendant did not specifically enter a plea.”

...Schumann and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, FL, for Respondent. WELLS, J. We have for review a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal on the following questions, which the court certified to be of great public importance: DOES SECTION 775.089, FLORIDA STATUTES (2003), AUTHORIZE A RESTITUTION AWARD FOR THE LOST WAGES OF A NEXT OF KIN VOLUNTARILY ATTENDING THE MURDER TRIAL OF THE PERSON ACCUSED OF KILLING THE VICTIM? DOES SECTION 775.089, FLORIDA STATUTES (2003), AUTHORIZE A RESTITUTION AWARD FOR THE ESTATE OF A MURDER VICTIM OF AN AMOUNT CONSISTING OF THE LOST FUTURE INCOME OF THE VICTIM? Koile v....

...ourt proceedings because the attendance did not bear a significant relationship to the underlying criminal offense. Koile, 902 So.2d at 826. In turning to the second issue, however, the Fifth District reached a different conclusion, determining that section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2003), authorized the estate of a murder victim to receive as restitution the future lost income of the murder victim....

...See Daniels v. Fla. Dep't of Health, 898 So.2d 61, 64 (Fla. 2005); D'Angelo v. Fitzmaurice, 863 So.2d 311, 314 (Fla.2003). Koile first alleges that the district court erred in permitting an award for the victim's lost wages, alleging that section *1230 775.089, Florida Statutes (2003), does not provide for this type of award. [1] Section 775.089 states in pertinent part: (1)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...Reimburse the victim for income lost by the victim as a result of the offense. 4. In the case of an offense which resulted in bodily injury that also resulted in the death of a victim, pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary funeral and related services. § 775.089, Fla....

...ore legislative history to determine legislative intent." BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 863 So.2d at 289. Keeping these principles in mind, we turn to the petitioner's arguments. Koile first asserts that the only expenses specifically identified under section 775.089 as a legitimate restitution item for a deceased victim are funeral expenses and that the statute does not expressly state that projected lost future income can be awarded to the estate or the decedent's next of kin....

...[2] According to the plain language of the statute, the term "victim" includes not only the person injured by the defendant but also the person's estate if he or she is deceased as well as the person's next of kin if he or she is deceased as a result of the offense. See § 775.089(1)(c), Fla....

...Goode, 830 So.2d 817, 824 (Fla.2002) ("[A] basic rule of statutory construction provides that the Legislature does not intend to enact useless provisions, and courts should avoid readings that would render part of a statute meaningless."). Accordingly, reading section 775.089(2)(a)(3) by using the full definition of "victim" if a crime results in bodily injury, a court must "reimburse the victim [including his estate and next of kin] for income lost by the victim [including his estate and next of kin] as a...

...dant shall also pay the cost of the necessary funeral and related services. A defendant does not pick which provision he prefers; he is liable for all of the costs that are applicable. To read the statute in the manner proposed by Koile would ignore section 775.089(1)(c), which expands the definition of the term "victim." Koile also contends that subsection 775.089(2)(a)(3) should be read as stating that the court can award lost income only if the income was lost prior to the restitution hearing....

...[3] This definition is not as restrictive as Koile suggests but instead includes both paying a person back for expenses already incurred and restoring a person back to the position he or she formerly occupied so that the person is made whole. Based on the above analysis, we find that the plain language of section 775.089 clearly authorizes an award of lost income, including lost income which will occur based on the decedent's death....

...In numerous years, the Legislature has passed and amended the restitution statute, and each time the Legislature has stated that its intent is to ensure that victims of crime are properly compensated and respected by the criminal justice system. For example, in 1984 when the Legislature amended section 775.089 to include the provisions at issue, the Legislature made explicit findings that "[e]ven though there is growing recognition that the criminal justice system would cease to function without the cooperation of victims and witnesses, the...

...clude "the aggrieved party, the aggrieved party's estate if the aggrieved party is deceased, and the aggrieved party's next of kin if the aggrieved party is deceased as a result of the offense." Id. § 5 at 2146. [5] In 1992, the Legislature amended section 775.089 slightly, and in the bill amending the statute specifically noted that it had previously determined that "the state has *1233 a moral responsibility to provide aid, care, and support to victims of crime." Ch. 92-107 at 901, Laws of Fla. (preamble). The main purpose of section 775.089 has been to uphold the rights of crime victims by guaranteeing that they are compensated for their losses. Anything less than full compensation for those items discussed in section 775.089 would defeat the legislative intent of the statute....

...A statute "must be construed in its entirety and as a whole." St. Mary's Hosp., Inc. v. Phillipe, 769 So.2d 961, 967 (Fla.2000). As addressed above, Koile's interpretation of the statute would render the section expanding the definition of "victim" meaningless. The next issue this Court must consider is whether section 775.089 authorizes a restitution award for the lost wages of a next of kin who voluntarily attends the murder trial of the person accused of killing the decedent....

...Pay the cost of necessary medical and related professional services and devices relating to physical, psychiatric, and psychological care, including nonmedical care and treatment rendered in accordance with a recognized method of healing. .... 3. Reimburse the victim for income lost by the victim as a result of the offense. § 775.089, Fla. Stat. (2003) (emphasis added). Reading section 775.089(2)(a)3 by using the full definition of "victim" requires that in cases where bodily harm occurred, the court must "reimburse the victim [including his estate and next of kin] for income lost by the victim [including his *1234 estate and next of kin] as a result of the offense." § 775.089(2)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (2003) (emphasis added). Based on this language, the statute itself requires that the loss must be causally connected to the offense. When reviewing a challenge to a restitution award under section 775.089, Florida courts have required a finding that "the loss or damage is causally connected to the offense and bears a significant relationship to the offense." Schuette v....

...Thus, the lost income was not a result of the offense but was a result of a voluntary decision and does not bear a significant relationship to the offense. We agree that this lost income is not recoverable under the statute. CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis, we answer the certified questions by holding that section 775.089 authorizes a restitution award for the estate of a murder victim of an amount consisting of the lost future income of the victim, and section 775.089 does not authorize restitution for the lost wages of a next of kin who voluntarily attends the murder trial of the person accused of killing the victim....

...in my view, encompass this form of restitution. First, contrary to the majority's view, the usual understanding of the term "reimburse" looks backward to losses already incurred, not forward to anticipated losses. [7] This is consistent with the way section 775.089 has always been applied in our courts....

...lost income to the next of kin of a deceased victim. Under some circumstances, restitution for lost future income would prove a windfall to the victim's "next of kin," who would not recover this element of damages under Florida's Wrongful Death Act. Section 775.089(1)(c) specifies that "[t]he term `victim' ......

...If the victim in this case had not been survived by a spouse or children, his parents would have been eligible to recover net accumulations under section 768.21(6)(b) as well as restitution for lost income as "next of kin" under the majority's construction of section 775.089....

...beneficiaries such as siblings, who are ineligible to recover net accumulations under the Wrongful Death Act. I doubt that the Legislature intended this result. Instead, the Legislature's intent should be determined from the two subsections of *1237 section 775.089 that concern deceased victims: Subsection (1)(c) defines victim to include "the victim's estate if the victim is deceased, and the victim's next of kin if the victim is deceased as a result of the offense." Subsection (2)(a)(4) author...

...than estate beneficiaries often cover funeral expenses in defining "victim" to include "next of kin" in the case of a death caused by the defendant's crime. I discern no other reason for the distinction between the victim's estate and next of kin in section 775.089(1)(c). This separate treatment of estate and next of kin in the case of a deceased victim distinguishes section 775.089 from the federal restitution statute, 18 U.S.C....

...or deceased victim, and then authorizes reimbursement for funeral expenses to whoever has assumed the victim's rights. Florida, in contrast, specifically defines "victim" to include next of kin "if the victim is deceased as a result of the offense," § 775.089(1)(c), making next of kin the sole available recipient of the restitution required by subsection (2)(a)(4) for funeral expenses "[i]n the case of an offense which resulted in bodily injury that also resulted in the death of a victim." This is a distinction that reflects a legislatively intended difference....

...injuries resulting from or related to the defendant's criminal conduct, but not for the victim's lost future income. Thus, the victim's family can seek lost future income in a civil action, but not in a criminal proceeding pursuant to section *1238 775.089....

...ation of the sentencing process resulting from the fashioning of an order of restitution under this section outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims, the court may decline to make such an order. 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(1)(B)(ii) (2000). Section 775.089(6)(a) requires trial courts to consider only the victim's loss in deciding whether to award restitution and determine its amount, but gives the trial courts no discretion to consider the effect on the sentencing process....

...re too many unanswered questions under the statute and that if the Legislature had really intended this type of award, it would have provided more guidance. It is important to note, however, that Koile is not raising any constitutional challenges to section 775.089....

...Moreover, his point as to various "unanswered questions" is beyond the scope of the certified questions. We decline to address those claims that are beyond the scope of the certified questions and instead limit our opinion to the certified questions asked by the Fifth District: the types of restitution that are authorized by section 775.089....

...Anton also argued that the statutory provision for imposing civil restitution liens had been enacted after the date these offenses had been committed and did not allow for retroactive application. The State responded that the trial court had the authority to enter civil liens and income deduction orders under section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2003)....

...o order restitution after the probationary term. The State suggests the jurisdictional problem does not exist here when a court merely attempts to enforce an otherwise valid restitution order entered prior to the expiration of the probationary term. § 775.089(5), Fla....

...Mintz & Fraade, P.C., 9 So.3d 651, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). We agree with Anton that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the civil liens and income deduction orders. Two statutory provisions must be applied for proper resolution of this case: section 775.089(3), which governs the time for payment of a restitution order, and section 775.089(5), which governs civil enforcement of a restitution order. Prior to October 1, 1993, section 775.089(3) required immediate payment unless the court ordered otherwise....

...rdered by the court is not made within the time period specified, the court may continue the restitution order through the duration of the civil judgment provision set forth in subsection (5) and as provided in s. 55.10.” Prior to October 1, 1993, section 775.089(5) provided: “An order of restitution may be enforced by the state, or a victim named in the order to receive the restitution, in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action.” Effective October 1, 1993, the legislature amended section 775.089(5) to read: (5) An order of restitution may be enforced by the state, or by a victim named in the order to receive the restitution, in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action....

...However, section 16 of chapter 93-37, Laws of Florida, specified that the “act shall ... apply to offenses committed on or after October 1, 1993.” Because the offenses in this case were committed prior to October 1, 1993, the changes made in 1993 to sections 775.089(3) and (5) are inapplicable....

...To enforce the restitution order, the State must file a civil action. 2 Reversed. CIKLIN, GERBER and CONNER, JJ„ concur. . Although the trial court cannot extend or enforce the order once probation expires, the State and the victim are still able to enforce the restitution order as a civil judgment under section 775.089(5). See V.I. v. State, 667 So.2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (court could not enforce restitution after juvenile’s nineteenth birthday; victim can enforce restitution under section 775.089(5) after trial court loses jurisdiction over juvenile)....

on the ground that the restitution statute, section 775.089, Florida Statutes, had been significantly changed

...1 *1211 CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; RESTITUTION ORDER VACATED; CASE REMANDED. SHARP, W., PLEUS and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur. . Although we vacate the restitution order because the trial court lacked jurisdiction, the trial court's determination regarding restitution was substantively correct. Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2001), authorizes the court to order restitution to a crime victim for damages or loss caused directly or indirectly by a defendant’s offense or related to the defendant's criminal episode....

...related to the theft of the vehicle. However, there was no testimony or evidence indicating that the loss of the vehicle was caused directly or indirectly by Mr. Cummings’ offense of trespass or that such loss was related to his criminal episode. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2008), provides as follows: (l)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

remaining offense for which defendant was convicted); § 775.089(l)(b)2, Fla.Stat. (1993). HARRIS, GRIFFIN and

...6 items’ value. The circuit court in this case recognized this unjust result in honorably attempting to justify its determination of the restitution amount here. Based on the foregoing, we recommend that our state legislature revisit section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2012), and consider providing trial courts with wider discretion in setting the restitution amount. We recommend the following underlined revision to section 775.089(7): Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence....

...Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(e) states: “At the sentencing hearing, the court must make a determination if restitution is applicable. The amount and method of restitution is to be determined as provided by law.” The law that governs restitution in criminal cases is Section 775.089, Florida Statutes. 1 Defendant acted with multiple other co-defendants to perpetrate the scheme to defraud Walmart. 2 Specifically, Defendant asserted that some of the losses were attributed to conduct that occurred in other states. 2 Section 775.089(6)(a) provides: “The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense.” Section 775.089(7)(b) then provides, “Restitution must be determined on a fair market value basis unless the state, victim, or defendant shows that using another basis, including, but not limited to, replacement cost, purchase price less depreciation, or actual cost of repair, is equitable and better furthers the purposes of restitution.” Lastly, Section 775.089(7)(c) states in pertinent part, “Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence.” The fact that a defendant may be heard on the proper amount and type of restitution and that any dispute regarding same must be resolved based on the preponderance of the evidence necessarily requires an evidentiary hearing for the court to determine the proper amount of restitution. And indeed, applying Section 775.089, our sister courts have repeatedly held that where a defendant objects to the restitution sought by the State, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the restitution amount....

...of marijuana. The trial court sentenced Mr. Cherry to a year in the Pinellas *775 County Jail on the marijuana charge and reserved jurisdiction to order restitution. Eight and one-half months later, the trial court entered a restitution order under section 775.089(5), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...and sentence. The State properly concedes error. DISCUSSION The trial court ordered Mr. Cherry to pay restitution to the Pinellas County Sheriff for the costs of medical treatment that he received while he was an inmate at the Pinellas County Jail. Section 775.089(1)(a) provides, in pertinent part: In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...State, 611 So.2d 68, 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (same). We also note that the trial court erred in entering the restitution order over a timely defense objection in the absence of competent, substantial evidence to prove the amount of restitution sought. See § 775.089(7); Glaubius, 688 So.2d at 915; Bellot v....

...We construe this reason as an expression of the trial court’s doubt regarding Duffer’s guilt. This is an invalid reason for departure. See State v. Wright, 473 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The court stated further that Duffer had made restitution. Although the court had not yet ordered restitution, section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1985), provides that the court shall order a defendant to make restitution to the victim....

...t J.D. had damaged. Specifically, he contends this expense was not causally connected to his criminal act. The court is permitted to order restitution to the victim for “damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense,” section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2001), and the court seemed to be within its discretion to order such resti *461 tution....

...Appellant complains that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter an order of restitution, in the form of a civil judgment, after the maximum permissible probationary term for her offense had expired. The state responds that the trial court possessed the authority to enter the order pursuant to section 775.089(5), Florida Statutes. The applicable version of section 775.089(5) reads: “An order of restitution may be enforced by the state, or a victim named in the order to receive the restitution, in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action.” § 775.089(5), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1988) (emphasis added). We fail to see how this provision supports the state’s position. Finding nothing in section 775.089, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), to support the proposition that the trial court possessed jurisdiction to enter a restitution order after the maximum permissible probationary term for appellant’s offense had expired, we reverse, and remand with directions that the judgment be vacated....

latter portion of the sentence was error.1 Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), requires the

...Accordingly, we review for fundamental error. See Davis v. State, 741 So. 2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that fundamental error occurs when the trial court orders a defendant to pay restitution for a loss not bearing a significant relationship to the crime charged). Section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2019), provides that the court shall order a defendant to make restitution to a victim for (1) damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant's offense and (2) damage or loss related to the defe...

...When asked how much a juke box cost, the employee replied, “The last, approximately $3,000, $2,995 was what I was quoted at.” As was held in Abbott v. State, 543 So.2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), [t]he amount of restitution for stolen property as a condition of probation under section 775.089 should be based on the fair market value of the property at the time of the theft_ [citation omitted] Fair market value “may be adduced through direct testimony as to the fair market value ......

...*812 The appellant appeals that portion of his sentence for grand theft, in violation of sections 812.014(1) and 812.014(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), ordering him to pay restitution. Finding no abuse of discretion in the restitution order, we affirm. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1995), authorizes a trial court to order a defendant to make restitution for damage or loss caused by the defendant's offense. Section 775.089(7) provides that "[t]he burden of demonstrating the loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense is on the state attorney." Furthermore, "[t]he state is obliged to establish the amount of restitution only by the greater wei...

...constituted more than ample evidence that the defendant unlawfully received in her house $88,040.77 in stolen property belonging to the victim; this being so, the trial court quite properly assessed this amount of restitution against the defendant. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla.Stat....

...Indeed, by the time the trial court issued its order to show cause, Mr. Kaplan had posted an apology in compliance with the trial court’s dismissal order incorporating the terms of the parties’ earlier settlement agreement. The trial court also relied on the language of the restitution statute, section 775.089(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes (2023) to characterize the award of attorney’s fees as “restitution” to the “victim.” This statute provides for restitution to the victim of a crime, and defines “victim” in relevant part as...

...State, 803 So. 2d 862, 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “The burden of proving the amount of restitution is on the State, and the amount must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.” Koile v. State, 902 So. 2d 822, 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (citing § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (2019)). For adults, restitution is awarded for (1) “[d]amage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense” and (2) “[d]amage or loss related to the defendant’s criminal episode.” § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...Appellant appeals an order requiring him to make restitution for hand tools allegedly stolen. In a restitution hearing, the state has the -burden of proof, by the preponderance of evidence, as to the amount of loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat....

...Most, if not all, of the damage was caused by the driver, first, when he stole the vehicle, and second, when he negligently parked it so that it rolled away and was damaged. Since the defendant must have caused the damage or loss, at least indirectly, in order to support an order of restitution, § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...State, 636 So.2d 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), P.H. v. State, 774 So.2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), and Ocasio v. State, 586 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), all of which hold that the mother of a victim is not a “victim” for purposes of the restitution statute, section 775.089, Fla....

...Gluesenkamp and Ocasio both apply the pre-1994 version of the restitution statute, which defined “victim” as “the aggrieved party, the aggrieved party’s estate if the aggrieved party is deceased, and the aggrieved party’s next of kin if the aggrieved party is deceased as a result of the offense.” § 775.089(l)(c), Fla....

...injury or death as a direct or indirect result of the defendant’s offense or criminal episode, and also includes the victim’s estate if the victim is deceased, and the victim’s next of kin if the victim is deceased as a result of the offense. § 775.089(1)(c), Fla....

...In the instant case, there is evidence that the victim’s mother lost wages as a result of being unable to go to work because of the emotional turmoil caused by Appellant’s offense. Lost wages may be the basis for a restitution award. Graham v. State, 720 So.2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); § 775.089(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). Thus, the victim’s mother is entitled to restitution under the applicable version of section 775.089, Florida Statutes, and competent substantial evidence supports such award....

hearing evidenced that it intended to follow section 775.089(3)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1995), by requiring

...s a legal cause of the accident resulting in injury. We disagree. The Williams court concluded that the “significant relationship” test established in J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737 (Fla.1985), works in conjunction with the causation required by section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...because the victim had no receipt verifying the amount to which she testified that she paid for the repairs, and also because her testimony was speculative. The trial court ordered K.R. to pay $479 and reduced the restitution to a civil lien. K.R. appeals the order of restitution. Section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (2012), states: “Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence....

...We affirm the conviction and sentence, without prejudice to the appellant raising the ineffective assistance of counsel claims initially in the trial court. See Weber v. State, 411 So.2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We reverse the restitution order because no restitution hearing was conducted. See section 775.089(6) and (7), Fla.Stat....

...Since the offense here was committed in 1991, there was no basis for the trial court to retain jurisdiction after the defendant’s nineteenth birthday. This holding, of course, does not prevent the victims from seeking to enforce restitution in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action, as provided in section 775.089(5), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992)....

...The need for rehabilitation is also an invalid basis for departure. Matthews v. State, 502 So.2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). While the trial court may order restitution, it is in addition to any punishment and is not considered in the sentencing guidelines. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes....

of potential future financial resources. See § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (1995). We agree that the record

...Whereas the criminal restitution statute does at times require the court to consider the defendant's financial resources, the civil restitution statute at issue here contains no such requirement, instead setting a fixed amount based on type of crime and length of incarceration. Compare § 775.089(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (2019) ("The criminal court, at the time of enforcement of the restitution order, shall consider the financial resources of the defendant . . . ."), and § 775.089(7) ("The burden of demonstrating the present financial resources and the absence of potential future financial resources of the defendant and the financial needs of the defendant and his or her dependents is on the defendant."), with § 96...

...it finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution. Restitution may be monetary or nonmonetary restitution. The court shall make the payment of restitution a condition to probation in accordance with s. 948.03.” Subsection (4) of section 775.089 requires complete satisfaction of any restitutionary order, the failure of which may be grounds for the revocation of probation....

...Hence the restitution order has complications and effects which the ordinary civil money judgment lacks. It necessarily holds incarceration over the head of the defendant like a sword of Damocles to enforce payment in a way that civil judgments cannot. Like most provisions in the Florida Criminal Code, section 775.089 is subject to the rule of lenity of section 775.021(1); if two constructions of the statutory text are possible, then we must use the one that favors the defendant....

...nnected” to the offense of contracting without a license. Restitution is authorized for “[djamage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense” and for “[djamage or loss related to the defendant’s criminal episode.” § 775.089(l)(a)1.2., Fla....

PER CURIAM. Appellant raises seven issues on appeal, and we affirm on all but one. Appellant argues that pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2013), the trial court erred in entering a restitution order without first holding a hearing to determine the amount. Absent any agreement or stipulation between the parties as to the amount of restitution to be imposed, the trial court entered a restitution order without first holding a hearing. But section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (2013), provides in relevant part that “[a]ny dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence.” The State concedes, and we agree, that...

...exchanging the property for money. The nexus between his crime and the restitution is irrefutable. The nexus having been established, the next question is whether Bogart can be required to pay restitution for articles not alleged in the information. Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes, 3 allows the trial court to require restitution for damage or loss caused “directly or indirectly” by the defendant....

...State, 718 So.2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Moreover, we note that Bogert signed a plea agreement stating that he would pay restitution. This agreement is binding upon Bogart and may require him to pay restitution for crimes with which he was not charged. § 775.089(l)(b)2, Fla....

...Here, the trial court found that Bogert was employed at Coastal Mitsubishi doing body work on automobiles and that $100 per month was not an onerous burden. Because a trial court is required to order restitution unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution, we find no abuse of discretion. § 775.089(l)(a)2, Fla....

...Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Sharon Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant raises seven issues on appeal, and we affirm on all but one. Appellant argues that pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2013), the trial court erred in entering a restitution order without first holding a hearing to determine the amount. Absent any agreement or stipulation between the parties as to the amount of restitution to be imposed, the trial court entered a restitution order without first holding a hearing. But section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (2013), provides in relevant part that “[a]ny dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence.” The State concedes, and we agree, t...

...s criminal conduct was not the cause of the victim’s behavioral problems. The court then entered an order directing the defendant to pay the victim restitution in the amount of $795, and reserving jurisdiction to determine future restitution. *738 Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), provided in relevant part that: 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...

..., a restitution order should be entered in accordance with the ruling in Weckerle v. State, 579 So.2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). REVERSED and REMANDED. GRIFFIN, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur. . The language set forth in the current restitution statute, section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), is even more broad, providing in relevant part: 775.089 Restitution.- (l)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...The only issue meriting discussion is contained in the cross appeal. The- state in its brief argues that the trial court erred in failing to award restitution to the victim’s family for funeral expenses. The amount of that expense is $1,226.48. Under section 775.089(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1989), such an expense is assessable as restitution....

...Third, he contends that no evidence or testimony establishes the amount of $1275.58 added on at the bottom of the spreadsheet. When the amount of restitution is disputed, the State has the burden to prove by the preponderance of the evidence the amount of the victim's loss as a result of the defendant's offense. § 775.089(7), Fla....

...ritten on the spreadsheet at the bottom of the "Missing/Stolen" column. No testimony or other evidence explains what this figure represents, and the State failed to prove that it was a part of the victim's loss as a result of Canerday's offense. See § 775.089(7)....

than entering a written order. We disagree. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1995), and the cases interpreting

...The defendant contends the trial court properly denied restitution. We agree with the State. Absent clear and compelling reasons not to do so, a trial court must order a defendant to make restitution to his or her victims for damages or loss caused by the defendant’s offense. § 775.089(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). The statute further provides that a restitution order will not bar any subsequent civil recovery, although the amount of restitution shall be set off against such recovery. § 775.089(8)....

...Therefore, the trial court improperly considered the speculative nature of the land transactions in denying restitution. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of restitution, and remand for further proceedings to determine the amount of restitution in accordance with the statute. § 775.089(6)(b) (“The criminal court ......

counterpart for adult offenders, section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes. Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes

of the offense is on the state attorney. See § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (2019); Strickland v. State, 746

...The evidence presented by the state clearly refutes this argument, and we affirm Battles’ conviction without further discussion. Battles also contends that the trial court erred in requiring payment of restitution to the individual who purchased the stolen property from him. Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that “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” (emphasis supplied). Section 775.089(l)(c) defines “victim,” in pertinent part, as “the aggrieved party.” Battles argues that the only victim of the crime of dealing in stolen property is the person from whom the property is stolen, and that by ordering that rest...

...ed dealer in stolen property to retain money obtained from innocent purchasers. We therefore hold that, as to the crime of dealing in stolen property, a bona fide purchaser for value of that property is a “victim” or “aggrieved party” within section 775.089(l)(a) and (c), so that the trial court must require payment of restitution in the amount paid for the property by that purchaser....

right to restitution. See § 775.089(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). Section 775.089(l)(a) provides that the trial

PER CURIAM. Defendant contends, and the state correctly concedes, that the trial court erred in *1254 ordering her to pay restitution for damages that were not proven to be directly or indirectly related to the offenses to which she pleaded guilty. § 775.089(l)(a), Fla.Stat....

...Defendant contends that imposition of restitution as a condition of probation was erroneous because he had been given no notice that the state would seek to impose restitution. The state, citing Gilmore v. State, 479 So.2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), argues that the 1984 amendment to section 775.089, Florida Statutes, provides for restitution and that defendant was thereby on notice that restitution would be considered as a part of his sentencing....

...Thus, the report itself was not capable, on its face, of proving any loss amount. “The statutory provisions requiring the imposition of restitution recognize the discretion of the trial court in determining the amount of restitution.” Spivey v. State, 531 So. 2d 965, 966 (Fla. 1988). Section 775.089(6)(a), Florida Statutes, provides: “The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense.” Section 775.089(6)(b) provides: “The criminal court, at the time of enforcement of the restitution order, shall consider the financial resources of the defendant, the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant...

...Appellant does argue that the State should have put on evidence of the fair market value factors. We agree with Appellant because no party made any showing below as to why fair market value was not the appropriate measure for restitution in this case. See § 775.089(7)(b), Fla....

...not supported by competent evidence. “The State has the burden to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense.” D.E.M. v. State, 109 So. 3d 1229, 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); see § 775.089(7)(c), Fla....

...admitted to them in her purported written statement to the store is similar to the argument that a defendant should be held to a restitution amount admitted in a plea. However, the Florida Supreme Court has held that, based on the plain language of section 775.089(1)(a), restitution can only be ordered for loss or damage “directly or indirectly” caused by the offense committed by the defendant. Glaubius, 688 So....

23 in restitution ordered by the trial court. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat. (1989); Boss v. State, 613 So.2d

...Appellant/defendant, David Scott Haynes, appeals an order directing him to pay $704 in additional restitution to the victim. We affirm the $600 portion of the order, representing 30 hours in lost overtime pay, finding the victim’s testimony to have been undisputed and the award to have been specifically authorized by section 775.089(2)(c), Florida Statutes....

...000.00) dollars in restitution. At the hearing held to determine the mode and manner of payment, the trial judge ordered monthly installments of three hundred ($300.00) dollars. Appellant appeals, arguing the amount of the installments is excessive. Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1987), authorizes a court to consider a defendant’s earning ability as well as other factors deemed appropriate when determining the manner and mode of restitution payments....

PER CURIAM. We affirm without comment Appellant’s conviction for shooting into an occupied structure. However, upon the State’s concession of error, we reverse the restitution order at issue and remand for further proceedings under section 775.089, Fla.Stat....

...erely directed the probation officer to get more details on the defendant’s income and expenses and suggest to the court a payment schedule. When the trial court specifies a payment schedule, the defendant is entitled to notice and a hearing under section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...The defendant not only objected to restitution for the items that had not been pawned, but to the victim’s guesstimates, and his qualifications to testify to present value. The court ordered the defendant to pay $9,984.12, which included the original price, not the fair market value, of many of the items. Section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes, provides: Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence....

...The burden of demonstrating such other matters as the court deems appropriate is upon the party designated by the court as justice requires. 1 He provided receipts for some items. 2 §775.089(7), Fla....

...of restitution when there is a proper objection by the defense to the hearsay evidence.” Phillips v. State, 141 So. 3d 702, 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Conway v. State, 115 So. 3d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)). Three, the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. § 775.089(7), Fla....

...2d DCA 2009); I.M. v. State, 958 So. 2d 1014, 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Smith v. State, 941 So. 2d 479, 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Ibrahim v. State, 866 So. 2d 749, 751 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). We have previously suggested a legislative fix by adding the following to section 775.089(7): “The court is not bound by fair market value as the sole standard for determining restitution amounts, but rather may exercise such discretion as required to further the purposes of restitution, including consideration of hearsay.” See Phillips, 141 So....

...addresses Florida’s broken statutory restitution scheme, I take the liberty of setting out most of an insightful law review article written by Florida attorney Adam Hapner. DO YOU KNOW THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY?: A CALL TO THE LEGISLATURE TO REVISE SECTION 775.089, FLORIDA STATUTES, GOVERNING RESTITUTION **** II....

...79 In addition, the court recognized that other Florida courts recently reversed restitution awards, leaving “wholly innocent person[s] . . . with a more difficult, if not impossible, path to recover their stolen items’ value.”80 Accordingly, the Fourth DCA recommended that the Florida Legislature revisit section 775.089 and “consider providing trial courts with wider discretion in setting the restitution amount.” 81 Specifically, the court recommended adding the following language to section 775.089(7): “The court is not bound by fair market value as the sole standard for determining restitution amounts, but rather may exercise such discretion 74 Phillips v....

...One advantage is that it would alleviate onerous requirements of proof in restitution hearings. Importantly, restitution is a post-adjudication sentencing proceeding. 86 Therefore, the defendant’s guilt has already been stipulated to or determined beyond a reasonable doubt. In adopting section 775.089, it is unlikely that the Florida Legislature intended to turn sentencing proceedings into “complicated, prolonged trials of the normal civil variety.” 87 Instead, restitution proceedings should be “expedient and reasonable,...

...f of value which are required of the state in the trial of criminal cases involving value as an essential element of the crime should not, in my view, always be imposed in the determination of an appropriate amount of restitution.”). 89 FLA. STAT. § 775.089(8) (2014) (“An order of restitution hereunder will not bar any subsequent civil remedy or recovery, but the amount of such restitution shall be set off against any subsequent independent civil recovery.”). 90 State v....

...)); supra Part III. 93 Thompson v. State, 68 So. 3d 425, 427 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) (Polen, J., concurring). 94 See Santana v. State, 795 So. 2d 1112, 1113 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) (“The primary objectives of restitution awards pursuant to section 775.089 are to give the criminal defendant an opportunity to make amends and to make the victim of a crime whole, at least to the extent it is possible to do so.”). 18  Adopting the Fourth DCA’s...

...sentencing, 100 hearsay evidence is often relevant to the defendant’s sentence because, as mentioned above, it is helpful, and sometimes necessary, to determine the amount of loss sustained by the victim as a result of the defendant’s criminal offense. 101 Section 775.089 in fact requires the court to consider the amount of the victim’s loss in determining whether to order any restitution at all....

...2014) (stating that rule 3.720(b) “does not define the term ‘submissions’ and neither expressly permits nor prohibits the admission of hearsay evidence”). 100 See supra notes 96–97 and accompanying text. 101 See supra notes 49–52, 55 and accompanying text. 102 FLA. STAT. § 775.089(6)(a) (2014). 19 although hearsay evidence is admissible in other sentencing proceedings in Florida, such as probation revocation hearings 103 and capital sentencing proceedings, 104 hearsay is still inadmissible in restitution hearings....

...the victim, 120 it is certainly not to create one for the defendant either. In 113 See Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913, 915 (Fla. 1997). 114 See supra notes 23–24, 26 and accompanying text. 115 See Glaubius, 688 So. 2d at 915; text accompanying supra note 31. Importantly, section 775.089, Florida Statutes, is not subject to a void-for- vagueness challenge because it does not penalize any conduct....

...CONCLUSION Due to the unjust results that can occur when the court has limited discretion and when the State must meet onerous requirements to prove the amount of loss sustained by the victim of a crime, the Florida Legislature should revise section 775.089 to better conform to the purposes of restitution proceedings, which are both compensatory and punitive....

...In addition, the Fourth DCA’s proposal does not require the court to use fair market value in determining the amount of the victim’s loss and expressly permits the admission of hearsay evidence in restitution proceedings. As such, the Fourth DCA’s proposal offers a great starting point in revising section 775.089 because it relaxes both the measurement of value and the method of proof in restitution proceedings....

...should consider providing the defendant with an opportunity to rebut or refute any hearsay evidence that is offered by the State, as is already done in Florida capital sentencing proceedings. 144 In accordance with the Fourth DCA’s recommendation, and the caveats mentioned above, section 775.089(7) should ultimately read as follows, with the suggested changes in italics: Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence....

...The defendant may refute hearsay evidence offered by the state attorney. In addition, because the above proposal permits the court to use discretion “to further the purposes of restitution,” but the purposes of restitution do not appear anywhere in section 775.089, the Florida Legislature should explicitly include the purposes of restitution at the forefront of the statute. With the implementation of these suggested changes, the purposes of section 775.089 are more likely to be accomplished, which means that defendants who cause loss to innocent victims are less likely to receive a windfall for their criminal actions and that victims of crime are more likely to be compensated for their...

...1980). Under Florida’s restitution statute, the trial court must order restitution for “damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense; and damage or loss related to the defendant’s criminal episode,” unless the trial court finds a compelling reason not to do so. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...this evidence must be greater than mere speculation.” Hunter v. State, 48 So. 3d 174, 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). The State bears the burden of proving, by the preponderance of the evidence, the loss sustained by the victim resulting from the offense. See § 775.089(7)(c), Fla....

...See Hunter, 48 So. 3d at 175; Boone v. State, 112 So. 3d 676, 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (reversing restitution order in part because the amount of medical costs was supported only by the victim’s testimony and was not corroborated with billing records); § 775.089(7)(c), Fla....

...Because Es-cambia County incurred a loss of nearly $1 million in purchasing the soccer complex and later selling it, the State sought an award of restitution to the County. The trial court denied restitution, concluding that the County was not a “victim” entitled to restitution as defined by section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2002)....

...Restitution The State argued below for restitution, noting that Escambia County suffered a loss of nearly $1 million when it sold the soccer complex after the commission’s purchase. The trial court denied restitution, ruling that Escambia County was not a “victim” as that term is used in section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2002). Section 775.089(1) mandates an award of restitution to victims. Section 775.089(l)(c) defines a “victim” as a “person who suffers property damage or loss, monetary expense, or physical injury or death as a direct or indirect result of the defendant’s offense or criminal episode ....” (emphasis added)....

...ies, corporations, and all other groups or combinations. (emphasis added). The appellant argued below and argues on appeal that, since Escambia County is a political subdivision of the state, rather than a “person” as defined in section 1.01(3), section 775.089 does not authorize a restitution award in favor of the county....

...Federal Trade Comm’n, 596 F.2d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir.1979), rev’d on other grounds, 449 U.S. 232 , 238 n. 7, 101 S.Ct. 488 , 66 L.Ed.2d 416 (1980); Toombs v. City of Champaign, 245 *99 Ill.App.3d 580 , 185 Ill.Dec. 755 , 615 N.E.2d 50, 52 (1993). In considering whether Escambia County is a “person” in the context of section 775.089(1), we also find persuasive the Second District’s reasoning in South Florida Water Mgmt....

...1st DCA 2001)(Department of Transportation is a “person” within meaning of section 180.13(2), Florida Statutes (2000)). Further, in chapter 960, Florida Statutes (2002), we find unmistakable legislative intent that a county is entitled to restitution pursuant to section 775.089(1)....

...Most significantly, the legislature further provided, that “[njotwith-standing this civil restitution lien act, the crime victim, the state and its local subdivisions, or other aggrieved parties are not precluded from collecting ... moneys awarded by a restitution order under s. 775.089....

...State, 846 So.2d 662, 662-63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Sheppard v. State, 753 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); and Sims v. State, 746 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), do not address the issue raised here: whether a county is barred from entitlement to restitution pursuant to section 775.089 because it is not a “person.” In each of these cases, the court recognized that section 775.089 did not allow restitution to a governmental entity for investigative, prosecutorial, or supervisory costs relating to the prosecution of the defendant because these expenses do not constitute the type of loss necessary to make the entity a “victim” within the meaning of the statute....

A restitution hearing in accordance with section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1991), shall be conducted

...127(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2023). Mr. Knowles was tried and convicted in county court, and the court ordered him to pay the victim $60,613 in restitution. These actions were within the county court's jurisdiction and authority, see § 34.01(1)(a); § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

...127(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2023). Mr. Knowles was tried and convicted in county court, and the court ordered him to pay the victim $60,613 in restitution. These actions were within the county court's jurisdiction and authority, see § 34.01(1)(a); § 775.089(1)(a), Fla....

probation officer, must set the payment schedule. § 775.089(3)(c), Fla.Stat. (1991). REVERSED and REMANDED

...A We review restitution orders for an abuse of discretion. State v. P.C.L., 332 So. 3d 4, 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). B 7  Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2024), governs restitution as a condition of probation. It directs the trial court to order restitution to the victim for “[d]amage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense.” § 775.089(1)(a)(1), Fla....

...2d 913, 915 (Fla. 1997)). The State carries the burden of proving that a restitution award arises out of the offense with which the defendant is charged. See K.N. v. State, 61 So. 3d 1258, 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“To order restitution under section 775.089, the State must prove that the loss or damage for which the defendant is being ordered to pay, is causally connected to the offense and bears a significant relationship to it.”); Malarkey, 975 So....

...). Notwithstanding these basic principles, a defendant may consent to pay “restitution relating to criminal offenses committed by the defendant to which the defendant did not specifically enter a plea.” K.N., 61 So. 3d at 1259 (quoting § 775.089(1)(b)(2), Fla....

...mage or loss incurred by the victim was not caused directly or indirectly by [Latham's] offense" and was unrelated to her criminal -2- episode. Defense counsel cited the general restitution statute, section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2012), and State v....

...statutorily authorized where issue was preserved in a rule 3.800(b) motion). B. Restitution Latham was convicted under subsection (1)(b) of section 316.027. Subsection (1)(c) of that same section provides as follows: Notwithstanding s. 775.089(1)(a), if the driver of a vehicle violates paragraph (a) or paragraph (b), the court shall order the driver to make restitution to the victim for any damage or loss unless the court finds clear and compelling reasons not to order the restitution....

...Fund under chapter 960. Payment of an award by the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund creates an order of restitution to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund unless specifically waived in accordance with s. 775.089(1)(b). (Emphasis added.) Thus, this subsection provides for two types of restitution: first, to the victim, and second, to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund (the Fund). The general restitution statute, section 775.089, includes similar language.1 1 Section 775.089 provides: (1)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for: 1....

...Section 960.17(1) provides that "[a]ny payment of benefits to, or on behalf of, a victim or other claimant under this chapter creates a debt due and owing to the state [and] shall create an obligation of restitution in accordance with [section] 775.089." Because payment to the victim by the Fund creates an obligation of restitution, we must look to the provisions regarding payment of claims to determine if the payment to the victim was authorized in this case....

...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 6 We note that even though restitution to the victim was not ordered under section 775.089(1)(a), section 775.089(1)(c) contains a definition of "victim" that, by its terms, appears to apply to restitution ordered under chapter 960. Section 775.089(1)(c) states that "[t]he term 'victim' as used in this section and in any provision of law relating to restitution means each person who suffers property damage or loss, monetary expense, or physical injury or death as a direct or ind...

...t account for the collection of court costs arising out of his criminal conviction. Wilcox contends there is no statutory basis for the imposition of the lien. We agree and reverse. The trial court’s order found that the lien was permissible under section 775.089, Florida Statutes....

...nd reversed. The lien on the prisoner’s trust account shall be removed. VACATED and REVERSED with instructions. TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur. . See Connor v. State, 944 So.2d 488, 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (Sawaya, J., concurring) (explaining that section 775.089 was enacted "to make payment of restitution to crime victims mandatory unless clear and compelling reasons exist to justify nonpayment”).

...The court declined to award any lost income to Mr. Macias-Castan, concluding that “the civil courts are the more appropriate venue to comprehensively address the lost wages” sustained by the victim. Lost income may provide a basis for a restitution award. See § 775.089(2)(a)3., Fla....

...Here, the unrebutted evidence demonstrates that Mr. Macias-Castan lost income as a direct result of Williams’s aggravated battery on him. Consequently, he is entitled to an award of restitution unless the court finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution. See § 775.089(l)(a)2., Fla....

...The circuit court shall reconsider its ruling on the violation of probation in light of the petit theft conviction. We affirm the restitution order because “the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence,” and not beyond a reasonable doubt. § 775.089(7), Fla....

...State, 718 So. 2d 854, 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (stating that restitution in a juvenile proceeding under section 39.054(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1995), the predecessor to current section 985.437, “is treated the same as restitution in adult proceedings under section 775.089”)....

will conclude by noting that the preamble to section 775.089, Florida Statutes, states, “[T]he criminal

...of the many persons involved in this action may have been eliminated or reduced if the state had requested that the trial court having jurisdiction of the criminal proceedings against Rogers order restitution in favor of the crime victim pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes....

...Appellant argues that the court erred in imposing restitution without advance notice to allow the appellant an opportunity to be heard. This court in Gilmore v. State, 479 So.2d 791 (Fla. 2d 1985), has recently held that advance notice is no longer required before imposing restitution because section 775.089, Florida Statutes (Supp.1984), provides that restitution shall be considered as a part of every *285 sentencing....

...The statute in effect at the time of the commission of the crime, rather than at the time of sentencing, is the controlling statute. Ellis v. State, 298 So.2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 298 So.2d 411 (Fla.1974). Therefore, the authority for requiring appellant to make restitution was derived from section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1983), which has been interpreted to require notice and an opportunity to be heard before restitution may be imposed as part of a sentence....

...State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187 (Fla.1989). The appellants argued that since they were only convicted of trespass of a dwelling with a human being inside, they *506 cannot be held responsible for the victim’s medical expenses under the restitution statute, section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...continues to argue that restitution must be based on the fair market value of the stolen property. We disagree. Rather than prescribing a method for determining restitution, the legislature has given discretion to the courts in making these awards. See § 775.089(l)(a), Fla....

...Kirkland would not or could not tell the court how many others were involved. When asked by the court for names of the others, Kirkland partially responded by saying, “[W]ell, not exactly the name, but I gave them the location where he can locate them.” Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1991) requires a sentencing court to order a defendant to make restitution to victims for losses caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s criminal offense....

...In ordering restitution, the court is directed to consider “the financial resources of the defendant, the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate”. § 775.089(6), Fla.Stat. (1991). The burden of demonstrating the present and potential future resources and needs of the defendant and his dependents is on the defendant. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat....

absence of ability to pay rests with the defendant. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat. (1993). See also Driggers v. State

PER CURIAM. The restitution order, to the extent it requires the appellant to pay restitution to the victim’s sibling, is reversed. § 775.089(l)(c); Catoe v....

...The trial court entered a restitution order directing him to pay $1,043.28 for unrecovered property stolen during the same burglary that the property he was dealing in was stolen. There was no evidence that he was one of the actual burglars or was linked to the unre-covered property in any other way. Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes, authorizes restitution “for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense.” Although the loss for which restitution is ordered need not be directly encompassed within the legal...

...R CURIAM. The state having confessed error in the order of restitution in this cause, same be and it is hereby vacated and set aside and this matter is returned to the trial court for further consideration of the restitution issue in accordance with Section 775.089(6), Florida Statute (1987) and Ballance v....

...Before the sentencing hearing, appellant executed promissory notes in favor of many of the subcontractors. Appellant argues that the court was precluded from ordering restitution in favor of those subcontractors who had received promissory notes. The subcontractors were “victims” within the meaning of section 775.089(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1995). The fact that a victim has an enforceable civil obligation covering a loss does not divest the court of the power to order restitution under section 775.089. One purpose of the statute is to provide the victim full compensation. Restitution as a condition of probation contains coercive elements not available in civil court. Section 775.089(8), provides that any restitution paid “shall be set off against any subsequent independent civil recovery.” POLEN, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ„ concur.

...Geresi the sum of $2,318.40. Turning first to the award to Mr. Geresi, no evidence of his medical expenses was adduced to support the restitution award. The burden of demonstrating the amount of loss sustained by a victim of the offense is on the state attorney. § 775.089(7), Fla.Stat....

directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense. § 775.089(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1991). JUDGMENT and SENTENCE

...As part of his sentence, a restitution judgment in the amount of $880.00 was entered, in favor of the county commission. Smith appeals the restitution order. The burden of proof in a restitution matter is on the state, which must prove the proper amount of restitution by a preponderance of the evidence. See § 775.089(7), Fla....

...orida Statutes (2000). In this case, the victims’ travel, lodging and meal costs were not investigative costs, thus Sheppard and Sam are not on point. Travel expenses may be awarded as part of the restitution judgment. See Neal, 688 So.2d at 394 ; § 775.089(l)(a), Fla....

crime in Florida are entitled to restitution, § 775.089, Florida Statutes, the award of which is reviewed

...We find no merit to the defendant’s other points on appeal. However, for possible future reference, we note that since the defendant neither objected to being required to make restitution nor offered any evidence of his -inability to pay, the trial court did not err in its order of restitution. Section 775.089(7), Fla.Stat....

without complying with the requirements of section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1985), in imposing court

PER CURIAM. The appellant challenges a restitution order which was entered pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes, upon evidence as to the value of some items, and the purchase price of others....

determining Mallard’s ability to pay, as required by section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1991). We agree and reverse

...However, based upon the “expectation of potential payment” from the lawsuit, the trial court found that appellant now had the ability to pay restitution to the insurance company. Appellant objected and appealed the trial court’s sentence. Restitution is part of a sentence. Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1983)....

PER CURIAM. The final order of restitution under review is affirmed upon a holding that the trial court had the authority under Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), to order the defendant Daniel Christenson to *104 pay the hospital and doctor bills incurred by the deceased as a result of a physical assault committed by the defendant against the deceased that led to the deceased's death and for which the defendant was criminally convicted....

...complications and expenses does not, as urged, absolve the defendant from the subject increased expenses. This is so because all of the aforesaid medical expenses incurred were caused either “directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense,” § 775.089(l)(a), Fla.Stat....

after his probation had expired. We agree. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1995), provides: *882(3)(a)

...re the mid point between the $5,444 total of the credit slips and the $2,800 which Thomas thought she had taken. The applicable provisions governing restitution as a condition of probation are Section 948.03(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1983) 1 *160 and Section 775.089(2), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...(e) Make reparation or restitution to the aggrieved party for the damage or loss caused by his offense in an amount to be determined by the court. The court shall make such reparation or restitution a condition of probation, unless the court determines that compel *160 ling and extraordinary reasons exist to the contrary. . § 775.089(2), Fla.Stat....

...State, 968 So.2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), we explained: "`Restitution must be proved by substantial competent evidence.' ... Where the proper amount of restitution is in dispute, the burden is on the state to prove the amount of the loss by a preponderance of the evidence. § 775.089(7), Fla....

similarly to the adult restitution statute, section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2017), which allows

similarly to the adult restitution statute, section 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2017), which allows

...nt of $110,023.00. We affirm the adjudication of delinquency as to both offenses and the commitment to a level of moderate risk. We affirm the restitution order in part, vacate the order in part, and remand for further proceedings in accordance with section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2004)....

...hich it deems appropriate” under Hawthorne, 573 So.2d at 333 . No such extenuating factors are apparent in the record on appeal. The State has the burden to demonstrate “the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense.” § 775.089(7), Fla....

theft auto, and grand theft third-degree. . Section 775.089, Florida Statutes provides that in addition

reasons not to impose restitution as required by section 775.-089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), the order

...estitution as ordered. Appellant challenges the order to pay restitution following his prison term. The burden of demonstrating the absence of potential future financial resources of the defendant sufficient to pay restitution is upon the defendant. § 775.089(7), F.S....

...M. Finding no merit in the appellant’s argument, we affirm the order of restitution. However, based on the appellee’s concession, we remand so the trial court may amend the order to allow for installment payments pursuant to the plea bargain and section 775.089(3)(b) and (6), Florida Statutes (1995)....

...pportunity for the defendant to be heard. There is nothing in the Third District’s opinion reflecting that the state did not otherwise meet its burden of demonstrating that the loss the victim sustained was caused by the defendant’s offense. See Section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...The term includes governmental entities and political subdivisions, . . . when such entities are a direct victim of the defendant’s offense or criminal episode and not merely providing public services in response to the offense or criminal episode. § 775.089(1)(c)1., Fla....

...4th DCA 2004) (“Because the sheriff’s office does not meet the statutory definition of ‘victim’ it is fundamental error to order 3 restitution to be paid to the sheriff’s office.”). However, in 2015, the Legislature amended section 775.089 specifically to include governmental entities and political subdivisions when they are “direct victims” of the defendant’s conduct. See H.B. 115 (2015) Staff Analysis (June 15, 2015) (“The bill amends the definition of ‘victim’ in s. 775.089(1)(c), F.S., to clarify that the term includes governmental entities and political subdivisions when such entities are a direct victim of the defendant’s offense or criminal episode and not merely providing public services in response to the offense or criminal episode.”). As amended, section 775.089(1)(c)1....

...provides that state agencies, such as the Sheriff’s Office here, are considered victims for restitution purposes “when such entities are a direct victim of the defendant’s offense or criminal episode and not merely providing public services in response to the offense or criminal episode.” § 775.089(1)(c)1., Fla....

...crime; and 2) the agency must not be “merely providing public services in response to” the crime. Id. First, the governmental entity must be a “direct victim of the defendant’s offense or criminal episode,” whereas a “person” under section 775.089(1)(c)1. may recover restitution if he or she is harmed “as a direct or indirect result of the defendant’s offense or criminal episode.” § 775.089(1)(c)1., Fla....

...We conclude that the Sheriff’s Office was a direct victim because its vehicles were damaged, not just as a result of appellant’s criminal episode, but directly by appellant’s conduct when he struck the deputies’ vehicles with his truck. No case in Florida has interpreted amended section 775.089(1)(c)1. Other courts, however, have considered whether restitution is available for damage to a police vehicle caused by a defendant’s criminal conduct....

...the deputies’ patrol cars with his truck during the high-speed chase, creating a direct causal relationship between appellant’s criminal activity and the damage to the patrol vehicles. Thus, the Sheriff’s Office was a “direct victim” under section 775.089(1)(c)1. Section 775.089(1)(c)1. also requires a governmental entity show as a second element for restitution that the entity suffered the damage “not merely providing public services in response to the offense or criminal episode.” § 775.089(1)(c)1., Fla....

...was the direct result of appellant’s criminal conduct. Thus, the Sheriff’s Office was “a direct victim of the defendant’s offense or criminal episode and not merely providing public services in response to the offense or criminal episode.” § 775.089(1)(c)1., Fla....

...of Parole and Probation. Bostic v. State, 504 So.2d 794 (Fla.2d DCA 1987). Pingel also contends that the court failed to make a determina *156 tion that he had the ability to pay restitution. The order denying Pingel’s motion correctly found that section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1987) places the burden on the defendant to produce evidence of inability to pay restitution....