of the morning burglary, the alarm was functioning properly and, in fact, was triggered. The act for which D.J.R. was charged, cutting the alarm wire during the attempted burglary, did not cause, nor did it remotely contribute to, the commission of the morning burglary. We find it significant that the wire was repaired to normal functioning prior to the morning burglary, breaking any chain of causation. . Accordingly, the damages incurred during the morning burglary cannot be considered in determining the amount of restitution owed where they are not causally related to Appellant’s criminal episode. State v. Williams, 520 So.2d 276 (Fla.1988)(the court cannot impose restitution for damages which transpired independent of the crime), and Glaubius v. State, 688 So.2d 913, 916 (Fla.1997)(<HOLDING>). We would note that the State could have
recognizing due process concerns inherent in sentencing based on false criminal history holding that the due process clause does not obligate the government to pay money damages holding that significant due process concerns regarding the validity of section 775089 would be raised if the trial court required the defendant to pay a sum in excess of the amount of damages his criminal conduct caused the victim holding that the victim and witness protection act limits the amount of restitution to the loss caused by the specific conduct forming the basis of the offense of conviction holding that it is plain error for a trial court to require a defendant to pay courtappointed attorney fees in the absence of legally sufficient evidence that defendant has the ability to pay the amount imposed