RACHELLE MARIE JAMES v. STATE OF FLORIDA
2017 WL 2983286
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 6th2017Background
- Appellant Rachelle James pled no contest to seven counts each of giving false information to a pawnbroker and dealing in stolen property; sentenced to prison followed by probation.
- Victims discovered multiple pieces of jewelry missing after James worked as a house cleaner; a controlled call and victim testimony linked her to thefts and pawning to fund a drug habit.
- The State charged James for dealing in stolen property as to ten pawned items (items 4,5,11,12,14,21,24,25,26,27); the information did not include twenty other missing jewelry pieces.
- At the restitution hearing the trial court ordered James to pay $22,997.95 for all 30 pieces, accepting the victim’s unsworn website-based valuations and other estimates for value.
- James objected only to ordering restitution for the twenty items not included in the information and to valuation based on gold appreciation; she did not contemporaneously object to valuation of seven of the ten charged/pawned items.
- The Fourth District reversed restitution for the twenty uncharged items (insufficient nexus to the convictions) and affirmed restitution for the ten pawned items because valuation challenges were unpreserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may order restitution for 20 jewelry items not charged in the information | James: restitution limited to items charged and in factual basis (only 10 pawned items) | State: single criminal episode; circumstantial evidence shows James stole and pawned the other items | Reversed as to the 20 uncharged items; restitution limited to the 10 pawned items charged in the information |
| Whether the trial court erred in valuation of pawned items | James: valuations for several items were speculative and inaccurate | State: victim’s testimony supplied values; trial court accepted valuations | Affirmed valuations for the 10 pawned items because James failed to preserve valuation challenges by contemporaneous objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. State, 40 So. 3d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (standard of review for restitution is abuse of discretion)
- Malarkey v. State, 975 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (restitution in plea limited to losses arising out of charged offense/factual basis)
- A.D. v. State, 152 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (same principle limiting restitution to charged conduct)
- Socorro v. State, 901 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (no restitution absent causal link between loss and defendant’s offense)
- Medlin v. State, 180 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (restitution improper for items not covered by charges)
- Faulkner v. State, 582 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (similar limitation on restitution)
- Kiefer v. State, 909 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (contemporaneous objection rule applies to restitution hearings)
- Fillyaw v. State, 734 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (preservation required for appellate review of restitution valuation)
- J.S. v. State, 717 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (timely objection necessary to preserve restitution issues for appeal)