121 So. 3d 635
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Juvenile T.J.J. entered a no-contest plea to burglary of a dwelling and agreed to pay restitution.
- Charging document listed stolen items: a blue Dell laptop, assorted jewelry, a Sony PS3 controller, three PS3 games, and a Blu-ray DVD system (approx. $1,200).
- At the restitution hearing the court ordered $2,718 restitution including assorted coins and 50 video games (20 PS2, 30 PS3), plus other items—many not listed in the charging document.
- Defense objected that restitution included items not in the charging document and raised valuation objections (valuation not preserved on appeal).
- Trial court imposed a special juvenile probation condition prohibiting voluntary, willful, knowing contact with: persons on supervision, gang members, or anyone whose contact is prohibited by the juvenile probation officer (JPO), parent, or guardian; it also required the juvenile to check with the JPO before contacting persons outside school.
- Juvenile appealed both the restitution order and the special probation condition; appellate court reversed restitution in part and struck the special condition as unauthorized, vague/overbroad, and an improper delegation of judicial power.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution may include items not listed in charging document/factual basis | T.J.J.: Restitution limited to items in charging document/admitted facts; court exceeded plea scope | State: Some items (jewelry, Blu-ray DVDs, some games) were related to charged items; sought full restitution | Partial reversal: delete restitution for coins and all video games except three PS3 games; affirm remainder (jewelry, Blu-ray DVDs tied to charged Blu-ray system, admitted DVDs) |
| Whether trial court may impose a broad no-contact special condition (persons on supervision, gang members, or those prohibited by JPO/parents) | T.J.J.: Condition unauthorized by statute/rule, vague, overbroad, delegates judicial power, violates separation of powers, and double jeopardy (as amended) | State: Condition permissible as supervision tool and protective measure (implicitly argued) | Reversed: condition invalid—not authorized, unrelated to offense, vague/overbroad, and unlawfully delegated judicial power to JPO/parents; the post-hoc ‘‘affirmative obligation’’ to check with JPO also invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- Malarkey v. State, 975 So.2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (restitution limited to items reflected in information or plea factual basis)
- Siminski v. State, 1 So.3d 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (restitution reversed where additional uncharged items were asserted at hearing)
- Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1993) (special probation conditions must relate to the crime)
- A.M.B. v. State, 917 So.2d 239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (invalid special condition forbidding conduct not related to offense)
- Trent v. State, 770 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (same rule on special conditions)
- Hughes v. State, 667 So.2d 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (probation conditions cannot be overbroad or unintentionally violable)
- Huff v. State, 554 So.2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (striking vague probation condition that delegated definitional authority to probation officer)
- In re T.L.D., 586 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (court may not delegate judicially imposed conditions to probation officer)
- J.H. v. State, 71 So.3d 202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (probation cannot be enhanced without determination of violation)