with the Florida Supreme Court's statement on this matter. "While a settlement agreement with, and release of, a defendant's insurance company may reflect a victim's willingness to accept the amount paid in full satisfaction for all civil liability, it does not reflect the willingness of the People to accept that sum in satisfaction of the defendant's rehabilitative and deterrent debt to society. A restitution order pursuant to a defendant's plea is an agreement between the defendant and the state. The victim is not party to the agreement, and a release by the victim cannot act to release a defendant from his financial debt to the state any more than it could terminate his prison sentence." Kirby v. State, 863 So.2d 238, 243 (Fla.2008) (quoting People v. Bernal, 101 Cal.Ap pp.1987) (<HOLDING>); Urias v. State, 987 S.W.2d 613, 614
holding that the dismissal of a civil action in state court does not preclude a restitution order on the same claim holding that because the state was not a party to a settlement agreement a civil release of claims does not and cannot specifically preclude courtordered restitution in a criminal case holding that when in light of the circumstances of a particular case the court sets a reasonable deadline by which victims must present their restitution claims and supporting evidence any victim who fails to comply is barred from recovery holding that even though the victim has settled a civil claim and signed a release the state is not barred from seeking or the court from imposing reasonable restitution holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not