Title: State v. MacLeod

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

600 So. 2d 1096 (1992)
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
David Michael MacLeod, Respondent.
No. 78553.

Supreme Court of Florida.
April 30, 1992.
Rehearing Denied July 21, 1992.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., James W. Rogers, Bureau Chief, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Charles T. Faircloth, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Mark King Leban of the Law Offices of Mark King Leban, P.A., Miami, for respondent.
OVERTON, Justice.
The State seeks review of State v. MacLeod, 583 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), in which the district court held that the State may not appeal an order denying restitution because that order does not result in an illegal sentence. The district court certified *1097 the following question as one of great public importance:
Id. at 703. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed, we answer the question in the negative and approve the decision of the district court.
MacLeod was charged with DUI causing serious bodily injury, a third-degree felony, to which he entered a plea of no contest. At his sentencing hearing, the State sought restitution pursuant to the provisions of section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1989), as part of MacLeod's sentence. That statute reads, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added.) On July 31, 1990, the trial court entered an order denying the State's motion for restitution, expressly finding that "the defendant has fully satisfied his financial obligations to the victim." The court also found that the release executed by the victim's guardian in a civil proceeding acted as a bar to restitution.
The State appealed and, in response, MacLeod filed a motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the trial court's order denying the State's motion for restitution was not an appealable order when the trial court gave specific reasons for its denial of restitution.
We have repeatedly held that the State's right to appeal is not a matter of right and is purely statutory. Ramos v. State, 505 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1987); State v. Creighton, 469 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1985); Whidden v. State, 159 Fla. 691, 32 So. 2d 577 (1947). The State's authority to appeal is now set forth in sections 924.07 and 924.071, Florida Statutes (1989). These sections read as follows:
(Emphasis added.) Our case law clearly establishes that section 924.07 is the only basis upon which the State may appeal as a matter of right and that appeals can be taken only in the express categories contained in section 924.07. State v. Creighton, 469 So. 2d 735, 737 (Fla. 1985) (order granting motion for judgment of acquittal "is not among the rulings set out in the statute and thereby identified as appealable by the [S]tate in criminal cases"); Ramos v. State, 505 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1987) (State's cross-appeal cannot survive appellant's voluntary dismissal of main appeal); State v. Jones, 488 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 1986) (State may not appeal an order discharging affidavit of violation of probation). In the instant case, the State alternatively sought review by certiorari, which the district court below denied. We also note that the district court did not reach the question of review if the trial court had denied restitution without stating any reasons.
Clearly, section 924.07 does not specifically provide an appeal for a denial of an order of restitution. Section 924.07(1)(e) does, however, provide that the State may appeal from an "illegal" sentence. The State argues that, since the trial judge denied restitution, MacLeod's sentence is illegal. The State further asserts that a prior insurance settlement for the victim's injury is not a proper ground to bar it from seeking restitution for a victim of this type of offense.
Florida's restitution statute, section 775.089(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that "[i]f the court does not order restitution ... it shall state on the record in detail the reasons therefor." The statute clearly allows the trial judge to deny restitution, provided the reasons for the denial are set forth. In the instant case, the trial judge stated his reasons for the denial of restitution. We conclude that the State has no statutory right of appeal in this instance; we approve the district court's decision; and we hold that the failure to order restitution under these circumstances does not result in an "illegal" sentence.[1]
Accordingly, the decision of the district court is approved and the certified question is answered in the negative, in circumstances where the trial judge has set forth reasons for the denial of restitution.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
[1]  Other district court decisions which are consistent with our holding include State v. Martin, 577 So. 2d 689, 690 (Fla. 1st DCA) (trial court's order striking previously imposed restitution requirement "is not an order which may be appealed by the [S]tate pursuant to [the statute and rule]"), review denied, 587 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 1991); Dailey v. State, 575 So. 2d 237, 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (characterizing sentence not imposing restitution as "incomplete" but not "illegal"); State v. Butz, 568 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (trial judge's order failing to include restitution, without stating its reasons for not doing so, does not result in illegal sentence); Grice v. State, 528 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (failure to order restitution results in "incomplete" sentence).