IMMON NABIL IBRAHIM, 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 should be based on fair market value, not replacement cost, and modified the award for a stolen safe and a gold chain.
[1] Restitution for stolen property should generally be based on fair market value, not replacement value, unless fair market value will not fully compensate the victim.
[2] Fair market value of property takes into consideration its purchase price, use, condition, and depreciation.
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 intelligenceAppellant pled guilty to burglary and grand theft, and the trial court ordered restitution for stolen items. Appellant challenged the restitution amou…
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 Replacement Value cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, J.
Immon Nabil Ibrahim appeals the amount of restitution imposed after he pled guilty to burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. Ibrahim and his co-defendants burglarized the victim’s home, stealing a safe containing valuables. After a hearing, the trial court ordered restitution in excess of $40,000 for the items taken.
Ibrahim contends that the court erred when it ordered restitution for the stolen safe, which the victim testified cost $350, but was replaced with a more secure safe at a cost of $1,007. There was no testimony as to the fair market value of the safe at the time it was taken.
Generally, fair market value, not replacement value, is the correct measure of damages. J.F.H. v. State, 849 So. 2d 1151, 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Fan-market value takes into consideration not only the purchase price, but the manner in which the item was used, its condition and depreciation. Korica v. State, 791 So. 2d 543, 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Fair market value of the property should be used for restitution purposes, unless that amount will not fully compensate the victim. State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330 (Fla.1991).1 Additionally, the State concedes that the trial court erroneously awarded restitution in the amount of $2,400 for an 18 carat gold rope chain, when the victim testified that the value of the chain at the time of the theft was $2,300.
We affirm the restitution order except as to the two items referenced herein. On remand, the court shall reduce the restitution award for the gold chain by $100. The State may request a new restitution hearing to establish the fair market value of the safe if it so chooses. See 849 So. 2d at 1152. Otherwise, the value assigned by the trial court for the safe shall be stricken.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . In its answer brief, the State argues other errors in the restitution order. As those matters were not preserved for appeal, we need not consider them.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.D.H. v. State, 931 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…the trial court’s reasonable exercise of discretion. Bernard, 859 So. 2d at 562. This court has held that, absent special circumstances, the fair market value, not the replacement value is generally the correct measure of damages. Ibrahim v. State, 866 So. 2d 749, 750 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Walters v. State, 888 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); J.F.H. v. State, 849 So. 2d 1151, 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). A determination of the fair market value takes into consideration the original market cost, the mann…
-
Walters v. State, 888 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…e automobile, but the record suggests otherwise.1 This court has repeatedly held that absent special circumstances fair market value, not replacement value, is the correct measure of damages when determining restitution. See, e.g., Ibrahim v. State, 866 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that defendant could not be ordered to pay restitution for stolen safe where there was no testimony as to the fair market value of the safe at the time it was stolen); J.F.H. v. State, 849 So. 2d 1151(Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…
-
Kiefer v. State, 909 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…findings. Molter v. State, 892 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). [*574] The general rule applicable to awards of restitution is that the correct measure of damages is the fair market value of the property at the time of the offense. Ibrahim v. State, 866 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Fair market value can be determined through consideration of: (1) original market cost; (2) the manner in which the item was used; (3) the general condition and quality of the item; and (4) the percentage of depreciation. Id. A…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- Korica v. State, 791 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- J.F.H. v. State, 849 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)