Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 895.04 (2025)

Criminal penalties and alternative fine.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

895.04 Criminal penalties and alternative fine.—

(1) Any person convicted of engaging in activity in violation of the provisions of s. 895.03 is guilty of a felony of the first degree and shall be punished as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by law, any person convicted of engaging in conduct in violation of the provisions of s. 895.03, through which the person derived pecuniary value, or by which he or she caused personal injury or property damage or other loss, may be sentenced to pay a fine that does not exceed 3 times the gross value gained or 3 times the gross loss caused, whichever is the greater, plus court costs and the costs of investigation and prosecution, reasonably incurred.

(3) The court shall hold a hearing to determine the amount of the fine authorized by subsection (2).

(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), “pecuniary value” means:

(a) Anything of value in the form of money, a negotiable instrument, or a commercial interest or anything else the primary significance of which is economic advantage; or

(b) Any other property or service that has a value in excess of $100.

History.—s. 4, ch. 77-334; s. 1446, ch. 97-102.

Note.—Former s. 943.463.

Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 895.04

M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd

§895.04(1)PUBLIC ORDER CRIMESREMOVEDF · 1st

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1983–2006 · leading case: Stall v. State, 570 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stall v. State, 570 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1990). · cites it 2× “(1989) (making sale or possession of obscene materials a racketeering offense) with § 895.04(1), Fla. Stat. (1989) (making racketeering a first-degree felony) and § 895.”

Ruth v. Dep't of Legal Affairs, 684 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1996). · cites it 2× “See § 895.04, Fla. Stat. (1989). Instead, the statute classifies forfeiture as a civil remedy.”

Bankers Ins. Co. v. State, 437 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). · cites it 2× “§ 895.04, Fla. Stat. (1981). Should the court elect this alternative fine, the potential assessment remains indefinite until subsequently established by proof.”

Marks v. State, Dept. of Legal Affairs, 937 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). · cites it 2× “The Markses fail to point to any case law to support their contention, and section 895.04, Florida Statutes, which controls criminal RICO actions, makes no provision for recovery of attorney's fees.”

Shimek v. State, 610 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). “Finally, the sentence misstates crucial language of section 895.04 which requires proof of predicate offenses that have: the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of commission or that otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and…”

Bordo, Inc. v. State, 627 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). · cites it 2× “See § 895.04(1), Fla.Stat. (1991). . See § 895.”

Russell v. State, 675 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 895.04(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). On the eve of trial, appellant agreed to plead guilty to one count, in return for the state’s agreement to dismiss the other two.”

Bee Line Ent. Partners v. State, 791 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). “See §§ 895.04, 895.05, Fla. Stat. (2000). In the instant case, the state has brought a civil RICO action against the appellants.”

— 895.04(1) — 3 cases

Stall v. State, 570 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1990). “(1989) (making sale or possession of obscene materials a racketeering offense) with § 895.04(1), Fla. Stat. (1989) (making racketeering a first-degree felony) and § 895.”

Bordo, Inc. v. State, 627 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). “See § 895.04(1), Fla.Stat. (1991). . See § 895.”

Russell v. State, 675 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). “§ 895.04(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). On the eve of trial, appellant agreed to plead guilty to one count, in return for the state’s agreement to dismiss the other two.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.