CASEY R. LAMB, 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.
Appellate court reversed and amended a restitution judgment, reducing the award from $15,050.94 to $10,781.10 because the trial court's amount was unsupported by evidence presented at the contested hearing.
A trial court's restitution award must be supported by evidence presented at a contested evidentiary hearing, and an appellate court may review and amend the amount even absent a specific objection when the record shows the awarded sum is incorrect.
[1] A restitution award at a contested evidentiary hearing must be supported by evidence presented and may be reviewed and amended on appeal notwithstanding the defendant's f…
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 intelligenceDefendant stole a rented bulldozer from a construction site and submerged it in a canal. The trial court awarded restitution to Advanced Site and Pavi…
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 Appellate Review Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, C.J.
Appellant seeks review of a restitution judgment to Advanced Site and Paving [“Advanced”] in the amount of $15,050.94, which was entered by the lower court after an evidentiary hearing.1 At the hearing, the amount of restitution owed was the subject of considerable debate, if not confusion. The defendant had stolen a rented bulldozer from a construction site and had submerged it in the St. Cloud canal. Involved were various elements of damage to the lessor of the equipment and damages suffered by the lessee, Advanced. Although the witnesses for Advanced initially had put forth the $15,050.94 figure, during the hearing, through discussion, it appears that the $10,781.10 figure was recognized by Advanced to be correct. The state properly concedes that the $15,050.94 figure is wrong but urges that because the defendant failed to “object” to the amount the court decided to award, our decision in Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA), review granted, 718 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1998), precludes review. This is a misapplication of Maddox. This was a contested evidentiary hearing. The state offered its evidence of value and the defendant attempted to prove he owed far less than $10,781.10. The state’s proof does not support the amount awarded. The correct amount owed is $10,781.10. We herewith amend the appealed judgment to substitute that amount.
REVERSED; JUDGMENT AMENDED.
COBB and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur. . Appellant also complains of a judgment in favor of Travelers’ Insurance, but the duplicate payment error was not preserved and no error clearly appears on the record.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
State v. Miles, 775 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 2000)…PER CURIAM. We have for review State v. Miles, 732 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), wherein the court certified the following question to be of great public importance: WHERE THE STATE LAYS THE THREE-PRONGED PREDICATE FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANALYSIS SET FORTH IN…
-
Cardenas v. State, 816 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…to Officer Gomez preceded appellant’s being charged and Officer Gomez’s oral testimony that appellant admitted he was the boat operator. At the trial, the controlling law was this court’s opinion permitting the instruction’s use. See State v. Miles, 732 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (“Miles I ”), approved in part, quashed in part 775 So. 2d 950 (Fla.2000). Preservation I dissent from the majority’s opinion that appellant did not preserve the trial court’s error in giving the instruction. It is true appella…1 / 2
-
Leveritt v. State, 817 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…e statutory presumptions of impairment, see section 316.1934, Florida Statutes (1997), because rule 11D-8.012, Florida Administrative Code, the administrative rule implementing the implied consent statutes, was declared invalid under State v. Miles, 732 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), approved in part, quashed in part, 775 So. 2d 950 (Fla.2000), following the trial in the instant case. See also Mehl v. State, 632 So. 2d 593, 595 (Fla.1993). As a result, contends appellant, the state may not rely on the statut…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)