A Florida court has corrected a restitution amount in the case of Bruce Carl Stutzman II, who was convicted of an organized scheme to defraud. The District Court of Appeal of Florida ruled on June 24, 2020, that the trial court made a mathematical error in calculating the restitution owed to the victims. This decision affects Stutzman, the victims of the fraud, and the legal processes surrounding restitution in similar cases.

The court’s ruling came after Stutzman appealed his conviction and sentence, which included a restitution order. The appeal highlighted issues with the restitution calculation, prompting the court to review the details of the case and the trial court's findings.

Background

Bruce Carl Stutzman II was convicted in Polk County for his involvement in an organized scheme to defraud, which involved taking more than $50,000 from victims. The case was presided over by Judge Wayne M. Durden, who imposed a restitution order as part of Stutzman's sentence. Stutzman challenged this order, arguing that the restitution amount was improperly calculated.

The appeal reached the District Court of Appeal of Florida, where attorneys Ita M. Neymotin and Stacy L. Haverfield represented Stutzman. The State of Florida, represented by Attorney General Ashley Moody and Assistant Attorney General Peter Koclanes, defended the restitution order. The case was filed under docket number 2D18-2868.

The Ruling

The District Court of Appeal reviewed the restitution order and found that the trial court had indeed made a mathematical error. The court noted that the trial court had incorrectly included $6750 in the final restitution amount by reducing the requested fee for the 150 hours spent investigating the fraud from $85 an hour to $40 an hour. The correct calculation should have resulted in a total of $6000 ($40 x 150 hours).

The court ruled, "As such, we reverse the restitution order only to the extent that the trial court erroneously included $750 due to a mathematical error and remand for entry of a corrected order."

The court affirmed Stutzman's conviction and sentence in all other respects, indicating that while the restitution amount was incorrect, the underlying conviction was valid. Chief Judge Khouzam and Judge Atkinson concurred with the ruling.

Impact

This ruling highlights the importance of accurate calculations in restitution orders, especially in fraud cases where victims are seeking to recover financial losses. The correction of the restitution amount demonstrates the court's commitment to ensuring that victims receive a fair and accurate restitution based on the actual losses incurred.

The decision may also set a precedent for future cases involving restitution calculations. Courts may need to pay closer attention to the details of how restitution amounts are computed, particularly in complex cases involving multiple hours of investigation and varying rates of compensation. This could lead to more rigorous standards for trial courts when determining restitution amounts.

What's Next

Stutzman's case may be subject to further legal action, but the court's ruling primarily focused on correcting the restitution amount. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeals or related cases.