5D05-1601 Craig Maurer v.State

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D05-1601

Case Date: 10/09/2006

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2006

CRAIG MAURER, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed October 13, 2006 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, David Dugan, Judge. James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kellie Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. Case No. 5D05-1601

SAWAYA, J. Craig Maurer presents to u s an order of restitution and alleges that reversal is warranted because the order erroneously allows double recovery to the victim of his crimes. Specifically, the order, which was entered by the trial court after Maurer entered pleas of guilty to two counts of grand theft and one count of grand theft motor vehicle, requires Maurer to pay the victim $12,475 to compensate her for her loss of money and

a number of pieces of jewelry, including several rings that Maurer stole and then pawned. Maurer argues that because the pawned rings were being held by the pawn shop pursuant to police order and could be retrieved upon a $160 payment to the pawn shop, which he claims he had stipulated to pay, the trial court erred by including the value of those rings in the restitution order. In the constellation of rights provided to Maurer as a criminal defendant, he points to the general principle, applicable in all instances where restitution is awarded, that a defendant may not be ordered to pay an amount of restitution that exceeds the measure of damages suffered by the victim of the crime. See Kirby v. State, 863 So. 2d 238, 243 (Fla. 2003) ("[T]he restitution statute does not permit a double recovery of the same damages . . . ."); Bowman v. State , 698 So. 2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ("A defendant may not be ordered to pay restitution in excess of the damages caused by his criminal conduct. The purpose of restitution is to make the victim whole, not to make him better off than before the theft.") (citations omitted). 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 no t to order such restitution."

Download 5D05-1601 Craig Maurer v.State.pdf