Hall v. State
Hall v. State
Opinion of the Court
Thomas P. Hall appeals his convictions related to an organized securities fraud. Although there was conflicting evidence that the jury considered in arriving at its verdict of guilt, the verdict and judgment are supported by substantial competent evidence and we affirm.
Hall also objects to the amount of the restitution imposed by the sentencing court, arguing that some of the restitution ordered was not sufficiently related to the offenses for which he was convicted. Subsection 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1997), allows compensation for those injuries directly or “indirectly’’ related to the offense committed by the defendant. Glaubius v. State, 688 So.2d 913 (Fla. 1997). Here, Hall committed some of the offenses in concert with others and we conclude it was within the trial court’s discretion to order the defendant to pay the full amount of the restitution awarded. Moore v. State, 664 So.2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
Finally, Hall objects for the first time on appeal to the assessment of 112 points on his scoresheet because the charge of conspiracy to commit racketeering was scored as a level eight offense, rather than a level seven. Unfortunately, the issue was not preserved for our review and Hall specifically agreed to the total points reflected on his scoresheet. § 924.051, Fla. Stat. (1997); e.g. Medina v. State, 732 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Maddox v. State, 708 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. granted, 718 So.2d 169 (Fla. 1998).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.