We review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in J.S.H. v. State,
The victim anchored his twenty-one-foot motorboat to a bridge because it was running low on gas and а storm was approaching. Upon returning the next day, he found a person inside the boat cutting wires and loosening screws, and there was a large hole in the boat’s bottom. A repair shop estimated that it would cost $1,500 to fully restore the boat. Several items of property (i.e., cooler, fire extinguisher, compass, toolbox) had also been stolen from the boat; however, with the exception of an ammeter worth $50, all of the prоperty was eventually recovered.
The state filed a petition for delinquency, charging petitioner with second-degree grand theft under seсtion 812.014, Florida Statutes (1983). The trial court withheld
On appeal, petitioner argued that restitution was proper only for the ammeter but not for damages to the boat itself because he had been charged only with the crime of grand theft and not with the crime of criminal mischief. Petitioner asserted that the damage to thе victim’s boat was not “caused by his offense” as section 39.-ll(l)(g) requires. The district сourt disagreed, finding that the words “caused by his offense” do not mean that the оffense charged must bear a direct relationship to the damages caused but rather that the damages bear a significant relationship to thе crime charged. The court, however, certified direct conflict with W.N. v. State. In W.N., juvеniles trespassed on school property and allegedly broke sеveral thousand dollars worth of windows. They were originally charged with both criminal mischief and trespass. The criminal mischief charges were, however, nоlle prossed. The court, nonetheless, ordered restitution to be pаid for the broken windows. The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reversed the rеstitution order and stated there was no relationship between the offense charged (trespass) and the damages. The court reasoned that only the criminal mischief charge had a direct relationship to the dаmages, and, because it was nolle prossed, there was no legal foundation to impose restitution.
Petitioner contends, as he did in the district court, that the damages to the boat were not caused by his offense of grand theft. We disagree.
The damages were the result of the theft as they resultеd directly from petitioner’s actions which were necessary to perpetrate his crime. The hole in the boat’s bottom resulted from a seаt being removed from the boat, and all the wires were cut in order to facilitate the theft of engine parts. These actions were undertaken so that items could be stolen and were necessary for the theft to oсcur. Without these acts of destruction, some items simply could not have bеen stolen. It is not necessary that the offense charged describe the damage done in order to support a restitution order but only that the damage bear a significant relationship to the convicted offense.
Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court.
It is so ordered.