K.F. AND D.C., CHILDREN, APPELLANTS,
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.
In this juvenile delinquency appeal, K.F. and D.C. challenged the restitution amount and various written orders issued by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the restitution amount but reversed the written restitution and disposition orders to correct discrepancies with the trial court's oral pronouncements.
The court affirmed the restitution amount of $3,461.00 as pronounced orally by the trial court, finding no abuse of discretion in accepting the victim's fair market value estimates. However, the court reversed and remanded the written restitution order (which incorrectly stated $3,481.00) and the disposition orders (which incorrectly reflected pleas to grand theft) to conform them to the trial court's oral pronouncements.
[1] The fair market value of property is generally sufficient to compensate a victim for their loss.
[2] The owner of property is qualified to testify as to its fair market value at the time of theft.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 fair market value of property is deemed sufficient to compensate the victim of an offense for his or her loss”
Establishes the legal standard for determining restitution amounts based on fair market value
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 23, 1998, appellants were charged with burglary of a structure and grand theft. They pled nolo contendere to burglary of a dwelling; grand thef…
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 Fair Market Value Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, J.
In this juvenile proceeding, appellants K.F. and D.C. seek review of several trial court rulings. Specifically, appellants challenge the restitution amount assessed against them by the trial court, the discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement and the written restitution order, and the alleged inaccuracy in the disposition order. We affirm in part, and reverse in part.
The state filed petitions for delinquency against appellants charging that on May 23, 1998, appellants committed the offenses of burglary of a structure and grand theft. Subsequently, appellants pled nolo conten-dere to the charges of burglary of a dwelling; the grand theft charges were dismissed.
At a restitution hearing, the burglary victim presented a list of the items which had been removed from his residence and had not been recovered during the police investigation of the incident. The victim testified that in an effort to determine the value of each item in its used condition, he visited various pawn shops and checked the prices of similar items. The father of one of appellants’ co-defendants1 testified that he performed a similar exercise, i.e., he visited three pawn shops in Gainesville, Florida, and obtained estimates of value of the items set forth on the victim’s list. For the most part, the estimates of value presented by the defense witness were less than the values presented by the victim.
The trial court adopted the victim’s estimate of the values of his missing property, with the exception of one item. The court determined that a Zippo lighter should be valued at $10.00, rather than the $100.00 estimate offered by the victim. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court pronounced restitution in the amount of $3,461.00 to be assessed against appellants. However, the written restitution order reflects that restitution was assessed in the amount of $3,481.00. Similarly, the written disposition orders indicate that appellants pled nolo contendere to burglary and grand theft, while the record reflects that appellants entered pleas only to the charge of burglary.
The general rule is that the fair market value of property is deemed sufficient to compensate the victim of an offense for his or her loss. See State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330, 333 (Fla.1991). Moreover, an owner of property is considered to be qualified to testify as to the fair market value of that property at the time of theft. See id. at 333, n. 6. See also Vickers v. State, 303 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. denied, 315 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1975).
We reject appellants’ challenge to the restitution amount established by the trial court. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s acceptance of the victim’s estimates of the value of his unrecov-ered property. Since there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s restitution decision, we affirm with regard to this issue. Nevertheless, a written restitution order must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Brown v. State, 605 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Walker v. State, 701 So. 2d 401, 402 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Therefore, we must remand for correction of the written restitution order to reflect the amount orally pronounced by the court. Similarly, the state properly concedes the cause must be remanded for correction of the disposition orders to reflect that appellants entered pleas only to the burglary charged in Count I of the petition.
Accordingly, the amount of restitution established by the trial court’s oral pronouncement is affirmed. However, the written restitution orders and the disposi tion orders are remanded for correction in the manner specified in this opinion.
WOLF and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR. . Four juveniles were charged with the underlying offenses. Although all four co-defendants were present at the restitution hearing, this appeal concerns only K.F. and D.C.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Santana v. State, 795 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…rule is that the fair market value of property is deemed sufficient to compensate the victim of an offense for his or her loss. See State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330 (Fla.1991); Hagan v. State, 746 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) ; K.F. v. State, 746 So. 2d 493 (Fla. [*1114] 1st DCA 1999). The owner of property is generally considered to be qualified to testify as to the fair market value of that property at the time of theft. Id.; Fisher; see also Vickers v. State, 303 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert…
-
Butler v. State, 970 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…y a preponderance of the evidence. Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913 (Fla.1997). The trial court, however, possesses the discretion to base the amount of restitution on the victim’s estimate of value of the stolen or damaged property. K.F. v. State, 746 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Here, we find no abuse of discretion in the amount of the restitution, except for the valuation of the exterior door. The written estimate of the replacement cost for the exterior door was an out-of-court statement offered to pr…
-
Gilileo v. State, 923 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…g so, the court will need to decide upon the most appropriate method of calculating the award. The fair market value (FMV) of the property at the time of the offense is, as a general rule, the appropriate measure of the victim’s loss, K.F. v. State, 746 So. 2d 493, 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). However, Gilileo argues, and the State concedes, that if FMV is the basis of the award, the salvage value of the engine must be deducted from the engine’s $30,000 value because the engine had been returned to the victim, al…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1991)
- Vickers v. State, 303 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Royal Custom Builders, Inc. v. Hobson Gibson & the Fla. Dep't of Commerce, 315 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1975)
- Brown v. State, 605 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Royal Servs., Inc. v. Smith, 605 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Walker v. State, 701 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)