Court Opinion

ID: 9952652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 15:03:34.004319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:46.371289
License: Public Domain

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                   _____________________________

                          No. 1D2023-1253
                   _____________________________

S.L.L., A Child,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                   _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court of Levy County.
Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

                          March 20, 2024

OSTERHAUS, C.J.

     Appellant appeals from a restitution order awarding a
burglary victim restitution for lost wages corresponding to
appointments lost in her unlicensed cosmetologist practice. The
practice of cosmetology without a license is a crime. § 477.0265(2),
Fla. Stat. We agree with the parties that it was error to award lost-
wages restitution to the victim corresponding to the loss of illicit
work.

                                 I.

    In 2022, Appellant and two other minors broke into a home
and stole items used in the victim’s cosmetology practice among
some other things. Appellant was apprehended and pled nolo
contendere to burglary and grand theft charges. As part of the
plea, Appellant agreed to pay restitution. At a subsequent
restitution hearing, the victim testified and entered her
appointment book into the record showing that she lost weeks’
worth of hair and nail appointments because of the stolen
occupational supplies. On that basis, the trial court awarded
$3,650 in lost wages corresponding to the cancellation of numerous
cosmetology appointments, as well as $426 for the stolen items.

     Appellant objected to the lost wages assessment and
ultimately appealed to this court because the victim lacked a
license to practice cosmetology. According to Appellant, the trial
court’s award of restitution for income lost from illicit cosmetology
appointments violates law and public policy and should be
reversed.

                                 II.

     “Generally, appellate courts apply an abuse of discretion
standard when reviewing a trial court’s determination as to the
proper amount of restitution.” Koile v. State, 934 So. 2d 1226, 1229
(Fla. 2006). But where the only issue presented is a question of
law, the standard of review is de novo. Id.

     When a juvenile offender commits a criminal offense, Florida
law requires that restitution be made to compensate victims for
losses and to serve systemic rehabilitation and deterrence goals.
§ 985.437(2)(a), Fla. Stat. In a delinquency proceeding, “[t]he court
may order the child to make restitution . . . for any damage or loss
caused by the child’s offense in a reasonable amount or manner to
be determined by the court.” § 985.437(2)(b), Fla. Stat. This
amount may include a victim’s lost wages if the State establishes
by a preponderance of the evidence the victim’s loss was caused by
the child’s offense. See, e.g., J.B.E.C. v. State, 344 So. 3d 632, 633
(Fla. 2d DCA 2022). The calculation of restitution is generally
based on the fair market value of the loss: “Restitution must be
determined on a fair market value basis unless the state, victim,
or child shows that using another basis, including, but not limited
to, replacement cost, purchase price less depreciation, or actual
cost of repair, is equitable and better furthers the purposes of
restitution.” § 985.437(2)(b), Fla. Stat. But where lost income is not

                                  2
attributable to the offense, it “is not recoverable under the statute.”
Koile, 934 So. 2d at 1234.

     In this appeal, the specific issue is whether the victim who
was scheduled to perform unlicensed cosmetology work and had to
cancel various hair and nail appointments because of Appellant’s
offense can receive restitution for the lost income. The unlicensed
practice of cosmetology is unlawful and constitutes a second-
degree misdemeanor. § 477.0265, Fla. Stat. Both parties
acknowledge a problem with granting lost wages restitution based
on cancelled appointments to the unlicensed victim. And we, too,
agree that the expected income from the victim’s illicit cosmetology
appointments cannot serve as the basis for establishing a fair
market value-based restitution award for lost wages under
§ 985.437(2)(b). See Cooper v. Paris, 413 So. 2d 772, 774 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1982) (noting the court’s affirmative duty to prevent an
unlicensed party from benefitting from being rewarded financially
for illegal activities); cf. DeLong v. 3015 West Corp., 491 So. 2d
1306, 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (excluding the value of illegal
materials supplied to a claimant from the calculation of “wages”
because the goods could not be legally purchased); O’Kon and Co.,
Inc. v. Riedel, 540 So. 2d 836, 840–41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (finding
that a nonregistered architect could not legally enforce a lien
claim); Rolls v. Bliss & Nyitray, Inc., 408 So. 2d 229, 234 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1981) (recognizing “the controlling legal principle . . . that
contracts which are made in violation of . . . professional regulation
statutes are generally held to be invalid and unenforceable at
law”).

     We therefore REVERSE the portion of the trial court’s
restitution order awarding $3,650 in restitution for lost wages.

RAY and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                                  3
Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Emmalyn Dalton and
Jasmine Russell Dixon, Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee,
for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Darcy Olivia Townsend,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

                              4