DANIEL QUIGLEY, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a restitution order of $6,439.50 for grand theft of an airboat, holding that a repair estimate from an airboat company constitutes sufficient evidence of damage even if the victim did not actually engage the company due to insurance limitations.
A repair estimate from a qualified airboat company is sufficient evidence to support a restitution order under Florida Statutes § 948.03(1)(e), even if the victim did not actually use that company for repairs.
[1] A repair estimate from a qualified service provider constitutes sufficient evidence of damage for restitution purposes under Florida law, regardless of whether the victim…
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 intelligence“the estimate given by the airboat company was still a fair valuation of the damage done by the defendant to the airboat for which the defendant could be properly ordered to compensate the victim as restitution”
Court explaining why the repair estimate was sufficient evidence despite victim not actually using the repair service
Daniel Quigley pleaded nolo contendere to grand theft of an airboat and caused near-total damage to the vessel. The victim obtained a $6,439.50 repair…
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 Sentencing Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Daniel Quigley from a probation order requiring him to pay restitution in the amount of $6,439.50 as a condition of probation, entered upon a nolo contendere plea to grand theft of an airboat. The restitution was ordered to compensate the owner of the airboat for the near-total damage to the airboat caused by the defendant during the commission of the subject theft. We affirm.
The state established at the restitution hearing conducted below that the victim received an estimate of $6,439.50 from an airboat company to repair and replace parts of the airboat which were damaged or destroyed by the defendant. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, we conclude that this evidence was sufficient to support the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court under Section 948.03(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1991). The fact that the victim did some unspecified repair work on the boat himself and apparently did not, in fact, engage the airboat company to repair and restore the boat because of a lack of appropriate insurance coverage cannot change this result; the estimate given by the airboat company was still a fair valuation of the damage done by the defendant to the airboat for which the defendant could be properly ordered to compensate the victim as restitution. See State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330, 332-33 (Fla.1991); J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1985) (repair shop estimate of cost to restore boat damaged by juvenile accepted as proof of damage to boat).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 888 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…even that a bullet was discharged anywhere near where the victim was located. This case differs from cases where testimony establishes that a defendant discharged a gun directly at the victim or into an occupied vehicle. Compare Shellman v. State, 620 So. 2d 1010, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (finding evidence that appellant fired weapon “repeatedly” into vehicle, is sufficient for first-degree murder conviction for passenger/victim he intended to shoot, and for attempted second-degree murder conviction for the…
-
Ponds v. State, 664 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Shellman v. State, 620 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 629 So. 2d 135 (Fla.1993). DAUKSCH, THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1991)
- J.S.H. v. State, 472 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1985)