IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

D.J.M., A CHILD ,

Appellant ,

v. Case No. 5D 15

- 4496

STATE OF FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed August 5, 2016 Appeal from the Circu it Court for Orange County , Gail A. Adams , Judge. Katherine Puzone, Orlando, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

LAMBERT , J. D.J.M., a juvenile (“Appellant”) , appeals a restitution order entered following a plea. Appellant was charged with (1) grand theft of a motor vehicle, (2) burglary of a conveyance, and ( 3) grand theft of money, a cell phone, and a wallet and its contents, having a combined value of $ 3 00 or more. Because the restitution order included an award for items not specifically listed in the grand theft cou n t s and also provided for2

restitution for a claim that w as not causa l ly connected or otherwise ha d a significant relationship to the offenses for which Appellant tendered a plea, we reverse and remand

with directions for the entry of a corrected restitution order

. Appellant and the State entered into a plea agreement in which Appellant agreed to plead no contest to the two grand theft charges , with the State agreeing to dismiss the count of burglary of a conveyance. As part of the plea, Appellant agreed to pay restitution , with the court reserving jurisdiction to determine the specific amount of restitution. Following a restitution hearing, the court ordered Appellant to pay $680 for the cash taken

from the victim’s wallet, $400 for the theft of the cell phone, and $21 that represented a fee incurred by the victim to replace the keys t o the stolen motor vehicle . We affirm t hese awards and, in doing so, specifically reject Appellant’s argument that there was not sufficient evidence presented of the value of the cell phone to support the a ward. 1 The trial court also ordered Appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $200 for a computer tablet and $197 for school text books that the victim testified at the restitution hearing were also taken from his stolen vehicle. This was error. “[W]hen a defendant agrees to pay restitution as part of a plea agreement, the defendant’s ag ree ment is limited to restitution arising out of the offense charged by the State as reflected in the information and/or by the factual basis for the plea. ” S.S. v. State , 122 So. 3d 499, 502 (Fla. 4th DCA

20 13 ) (quoting Malarkey v. State , 975 So. 2d 538, 54 0

– 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 2 00 8)). Here, the arrest affidavit, petition for delinquency, and the factual basis tendered to support the

1 Additionally, n o restitution was awarded for the stolen vehicle described in count one of the petition for delinquency because it was returned to the victim. Lastly, although the wallet described in count three was never returned, no evidence was presented at the restitution hearing as to its value , resulting in no restitution for the wallet being ordered, which has not been challenged in this appeal.3

plea never ment ioned the tablet or school text books , nor was the delinquency petition

ever amended. Lastly, i n the order of restitution, the court required Appellant to reimburse the victim $1111 for h is loss of college financial aid. Essentially, the victim testified at the

heari ng that as a result of the theft, he failed two of the community college classes in

which h e was enrolled and for which he had received financial aid to pay for his tuition and was now basically obligated to reimburse this expense. To order restit u tion, “ the court must find that the loss or damage is cau s ally connected to the defendant’ s offense ” , and additionally, “[ f ] or restitution to be deemed reasonable, it must bear a significant relationship to the offense of which the defendant is convicted

. . . . ” Schneider v. State , 972 So. 2 d 1079, 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (citations omitted). Much like the tablet and textbooks, the loss of college financi al aid was never mentioned by the State in the petition for delinquency or at the plea hearing. Mo r eover, the loss of the financial aid has n o

causal connection to the theft of the motor vehicle, as the vehicle was promptly returned to the victim, n or to the theft of the money, wallet, or cellphone, which were the two specific charges to which Appellant pleade d no contest. Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order as it pertains to the tablet, school

textbooks , and college financial aid and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected restitution order in the amount of $1101. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with directions. LAWSON, C.J. , and PALMER , J ., concur.