# J.M. v. State

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · July 28, 1995 · 658 So. 2d 1128

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7690068

## Case

- **Full name:** J.M., a child v. STATE of Florida
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** July 28, 1995
- **Citations:** 658 So. 2d 1128; 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8011
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Blue
- **Judges:** Blue, Campbell, Lazzara
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7690068

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the cost of a security system was not encompassed in the statute permitting an award of restitution for “any damage or loss caused by the child’s offense,” as “the relationship between the system and [the child’s] delinquent acts was not the significant causal …

## Opinion text

BLUE, Judge.
J.M. was adjudicated delinquent of several offenses, including a residential burglary. He appeals a portion of the restitution order directing him to pay for a security system installed in the residence subsequent to the burglary. We agree that it was error to order J.M. to pay for the security system.
Section 39.054(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1993), permits the award of restitution for “any damage or loss caused by the child’s offense....” The damage or loss for which *1129 restitution is ordered need not be directly encompassed within the legal elements of an offense, however, there must be a significant relationship between the damage or loss and the offense. See J.S.H. v. State, 472 So.2d 737 (Fla.1985); Denson v. State, 556 So.2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Here, the circuit court erred by including the cost of the after-acquired security system in the restitution order because the relationship between the system and J.M.’s delinquent acts was not the significant causal relationship contemplated by the statute.
Accordingly, the order of restitution for the security system is vacated.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7690068. Public record. Not legal advice.