Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 11, 1994; Florida; State Appellate Court
John E. Sims, the appellant, pleaded guilty to ten felony charges in an open plea without a negotiated sentence. He appeals his conviction and sentence, which includes life imprisonment as a habitual violent felony offender with a mandatory minimum of fifteen years, specifically regarding the charge of burglary and assault. The court found sufficient factual basis for the plea, as the defendant, through his attorney, stipulated to the facts, and the trial court reviewed a probable cause affidavit and victim testimony. The defendant contended that the trial court misinformed him about the possible ten-year minimum sentence instead of the fifteen-year minimum. However, he did not move to withdraw his plea on that basis, which would have been appropriate. The court noted that the trial court thoroughly explained the potential consequences of the plea, including the possibility of life imprisonment and the court's discretion in sentencing. The court found no evidence of prejudice from the alleged misinformation. Lastly, the defendant challenged the restitution order, claiming it was not part of the plea agreement, that he couldn't pay, and that the amount was speculative. The court rejected these claims, noting that the defendant entered a straight plea without a sentence agreement and acknowledged his lack of ability to pay but still ordered restitution.
Defendant failed to provide evidence regarding his financial situation, which was his responsibility under Florida law, specifically section 775.089(7) of the Florida Statutes. By not objecting to the restitution order or presenting evidence of inability to pay, he waived any potential claims of error. Restitution was ordered not as a condition of probation but under section 775.089(3)(b)(2), which mandates payment five years post-imprisonment if probation is not ordered. Consequently, the risk of reincarceration for non-payment does not apply. In cases of non-payment, the trial court may uphold the restitution order, allowing enforcement akin to civil judgments per sections 55.03 and 55.10 of the Florida Statutes. The 1993 amendments clarify that restitution orders, while not labeled as civil judgments, can be enforced similarly. The court dismissed the defendant's argument that the $5,000 restitution to victim Helen Rand was speculative, noting that her testimony about the injuries sustained during the incident and the anticipated medical expenses was unchallenged by the defendant, establishing a clear connection between the crime and the damages. Consequently, the judgments and sentences are affirmed.
