JEREMIAH DAVIS, 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.
Appellant Davis challenged two restitution orders imposed after his conviction. The court affirmed the $821.90 restitution for vehicle repairs but reversed and remanded the $705.00 restitution order for personal property loss, correcting it to the $75.00 amount that was orally pronounced at trial.
The court affirmed the $821.90 restitution order for vehicle repairs as properly supported by preponderance of the evidence. However, the court reversed the $705.00 restitution order for personal property, correcting it to $75.00 based on the parties' stipulation and the oral pronouncement at trial. Both orders were remanded with instructions for correction.
[1] The State bears the burden of proving the amount of a victim's loss by a preponderance of the evidence when seeking restitution.
[2] Business records kept in the regular course of business, authenticated by a records custodian, are admissible to prove the amount of loss for restitution purposes.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“In seeking restitution for the victim, the State has the burden of proving the amount of the victim's loss by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Establishes the evidentiary standard for restitution orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis was convicted and the trial court issued two restitution orders. The first order, dated November 26, 1996, ordered restitution of $705.00 for lo…
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 Hearsay Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge..
Appellant challenges two trial court orders requiring him to pay restitution. The first order, dated November 26, 1996, ordered restitution for the loss of personal property in the amount of $705.00. As we will explain, the amount of that order of restitution is incorrect. The seeorid Order, dated January 17,1997, ordered restitution for damages to a stolen vehicle in the amount of $821.90.
We conclude that the amount of that restitution order was proper. Appellant first argues that the restitution order of January 17, 1997 for repairs to the stolen F.B.I. vehicle should be stricken because the only evidence offered by the State to prove the' amount of damages was the repair bills and the alleged hearsay testimony of F.B.I. Agent Wubbenhorst regarding the amount of money paid for the repairs. In seeking restitution for the victim, the State has the burden of proving the amount of the victim’s loss by a preponderance of the evidence. See Winborn v. State, 625 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
Since Agent Wub-benhorst testified that the bills in question were kept in the regular course of business and that he is’the F.B.I. records custodian, we conclude that the State’s introduction of the repair bills through Agent Wubbenhorst was proper and provided sufficient, competent evidence to establish the amount of the loss.' See Winborn. While we affirm the amount of the January 17, 1997 restitution order, we remand the written order for correction because it does not contain the provision, orally pronounced by the court and included in the November order, that due to appellant’s present inability to pay restitution, the court reserved jurisdiction to determine his ability to pay at the time he was released from prison.
Finally, 'the November restitution order incorrectly states the amount of restitution as $705.00. The parties stipulated to an amount of. $75.00, which was orally pronounced,, by the court at , the hearing. Accordingly, we Reverse and remand the November order with instructions that the order be conformed to the. oral pronouncements.
FRANK and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wamco Xxviii, Ltd. v. Integrated Elec. Environments, Inc., 903 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…t there was a íáck of admissible evidence and a failure of proof as to the outstanding loan balances. The trial court properly admitted exhibits 10 and 17 into evidence as business records of WAMCO. See § 90.803(6), Fla.Stat. (2003); Davis v. State, 707 So. 2d 842, 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); United States v. Parker, 749 F. 2d 628, 633 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Pfeiffer, 539 F. 2d 668, 670-71 (8th Cir.1976); Ashley v. United States, 413 F. 2d 249, 250-51 (5th Cir.1969). These documents, together with Grau…
-
Hunter v. State, 48 So. 3d 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…by the defendant’s offense. § 775.089(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). The state bears the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence the loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense. § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (2008); Davis v. State, 707 So. 2d 842, 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The trial court erred in awarding $12,500 in restitution for the following reasons. First, the victim testified that she paid $1000 for repairs to her home, but did not indicate what repairs were actually performed. See Tul…
-
I.M. v. State, 958 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…r section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes (2005), or are uncontested. See, e.g., B.L.N. v. State, 722 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); C.S. v. State, 617 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Bonner v. State, 899 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Davis v. State, 707 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Also at the hearing below, the court deferred monthly payment of restitution until the child finishes school or turns 18. The court properly overruled LM.’s objection that restitution should not be imposed at all, because the c…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Winborn v. State, 625 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)