Verdejo v. State

A divided Third DCA panel affirmed a $1,224.97 restitution order where Verdejo, charged only with grand theft of a vehicle, had agreed in his plea to a restitution cap of $3,278 subject to a later hearing, and had not been charged with theft of personal items found missing from the car. The majority held Verdejo was estopped from challenging the restitution because he agreed to the cap in his original plea and again agreed to reinstatement of 'all other conditions' (including restitution) when he later admitted to violating probation. The dissent argued the restitution should be reversed because the items were never part of the charged offense, were not disclosed in discovery before the plea, and the causal-nexus requirement under section 775.089 and controlling case law was not satisfied, and that a bare agreement to a cap or reinstatement of conditions is not the specific waiver needed to overcome that requirement.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.