NICHOLAS MALONE, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that restitution for a stolen item should not exceed the victim's loss after insurance proceeds, and additional probation conditions cannot be imposed without a violation finding.
Appellant Nicholas Malone appealed two orders imposing restitution and probation. One restitution order was affirmed, but the other was reversed due t…
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 Restitution Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Nicholas Malone appeals two final orders in separate cases imposing restitution and probation. We affirm the order of restitution in case no. 92-2337. We reverse the trial court’s order for restitution in case no. 92-2263.
The trial court erred when, in addition to the amount of the victim’s insurance deductible, it ordered appellant to pay the victim the original cost of a videocamera less the amount of replacement proceeds he re ceived from his insurance company. See Do-maceti v. State, 616 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Since the amount paid by the insurance company equaled the fair market value of the videocamera at the time of its theft, the trial court should have awarded the victim the sum of $250, the amount of the deductible under his insurance policy.
We further find the trial court erred in its March 16, 1993 order by imposing additional conditions of probation in both cases absent a judicial determination that appellant violated the terms of his February 10, 1993 probation orders. See Clark v. State, 579 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1991).
Accordingly, we modify the amount of restitution in case no. 92-2263 to reflect an amount consistent with this opinion. We further remand both cases to the trial court with instructions to delete the additional conditions of probation imposed by the trial court on March 16, 1993.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
DELL, C.J., and POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Loraine Branker v. State, 650 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…determining the amount of the award of restitution to Willets, such that the amount charged against Appellant should have been reduced by $6,000.00 to prevent a windfall profit to Willets at Appellant’s expense. This court in [*197] Malone v. State, 632 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) held: The trial court erred when, in addition to the amount of the victim’s insurance deductible, it ordered appellant to pay the victim the original cost of a videocamera less the amount of replacement proceeds he received from…
Authorities Cited
- Clark v. State, 579 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1991)
- Domaceti v. State, 616 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)