Case ID: so2d_573/html/0167-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. ANSTEAD, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anthony N. CRITSLEY, II, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Cross Appellant.
    No. 89-3142.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Jan. 16, 1991.
    Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Joseph S. Shook, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant/cross appellee.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Lynn G. Waxman, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee/cross appellant.
   PER CURIAM.

The main appeal is per curiam affirmed. The only issue meriting discussion is contained in the cross appeal. The- state in its brief argues that the trial court erred in failing to award restitution to the victim’s family for funeral expenses. The amount of that expense is $1,226.48. Under section 775.089(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1989), such an expense is assessable as restitution. Accordingly, we reverse on this issue and remand for further proceedings.

AFFIRMED IN PART; CROSS APPEAL REVERSED.

LETTS and WARNER, JJ., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

specially concurring.

I write separately only to note that we are approving here a substantial award of damages, by way of an order of restitution, to the deceased victim’s family. The trial court entered a judgment in the amount of $698,285.35 against the appellant who plead guilty to second degree murder. Florida’s restitution statute is broad in scope and appears to authorize such awards:

(l)(a) In addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for damage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense, unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution....
(c) The term “victim” as used in this section and in any provision of law relating to restitution includes the aggrieved party, the aggrieved party’s estate if the aggrieved party is deceased, and the aggrieved party’s next of kin if the aggrieved party is deceased as a result of the offense.

§ 775.089 Fla.Stat.

Other jurisdictions have approved awards under similar statutory provisions. See State v. Moriarty, 87 Or.App. 465, 742 P.2d 704 (1986); State v. Mayberry, 415 N.W.2d 644 (Iowa 1987). See also Durrett v. State, 530 So.2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).