SALLY E. WIGHTMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Defendant's appeal of restitution order for dealing in stolen property is affirmed where testimony from accomplice, victim, and jewelry appraiser provided competent evidence supporting the $88,040.77 restitution amount.
A trial court properly assesses restitution based on competent evidence of the value of stolen property received by the defendant, even when the defendant challenges the admissibility and quality of that evidence.
[1] Restitution for stolen property may be assessed based on testimony from the defendant's accomplice, the victim, and a qualified appraiser regarding the value of property…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSally Wightman pleaded guilty to dealing in stolen property and was sentenced to fifteen years probation with restitution of $88,040.77 payable at $40…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Sally Wightman from a final order placing her on fifteen-years probation which was entered below upon a guilty plea to the felony of dealing in stolen property. § 812.019(2), Fla.Stat. (1987). The defendant attacks the $88,040.77 in restitution [payable at $400 a month] which she was ordered to make to the victims of the crime herein as a condition of the aforesaid probation. We affirm.
The defendant urges that there was no competent or credible evidence adduced at the sentencing hearing below to support the amount of restitution ordered. In support of this argument, the defendant makes a broad-based series of complaints about the admissibility and quality of the evidence introduced below to prove the identity and value of the stolen property involved in this case. Without addressing in depth each of these points, suffice it to say that the testimony of the defendant’s accomplice, the victim, and a jewelry appraiser below constituted more than ample evidence that the defendant unlawfully received in her house $88,040.77 in stolen property belonging to the victim; this being so, the trial court quite properly assessed this amount of restitution against the defendant. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1987). See Spivey v. State, 531 So. 2d 965 (Fla.1988); J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1985); D.M. v. State, 550 So. 2d 149, 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1985)
- Spivey v. State, 531 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1988)
- D.M. v. State, 550 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)