JAY JACKSON WALTERS, 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.
Jay Jackson Walters appeals a restitution order requiring him to pay the full replacement cost of a stereo system he stole from a burglarized vehicle. The Fifth District Court of Appeal vacates the restitution order, holding that fair market value—not replacement cost—is the proper measure of restitution damages absent special circumstances.
Fair market value, not replacement value, is the correct measure of restitution damages. The trial court erred in awarding restitution based on replacement cost, and the restitution order must be vacated and remanded for a new hearing to determine the fair market value of the stereo at the time it was stolen.
[1] Restitution for stolen property should be based on fair market value at the time of the theft, not replacement value, absent special circumstances.
[2] A restitution order must be vacated and remanded if the trial court fails to determine the fair market value of the stolen property.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“absent special circumstances fair market value, not replacement value, is the correct measure of damages when determining restitution”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for restitution valuations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalters burglarized an automobile and removed a stereo system. The trial court awarded restitution based on the cost of a new replacement stereo syste…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Jay Jackson Walters appeals an order awarding restitution for the full replacement cost of a stereo system that he removed from an automobile that he burglarized.
The State argued that the new replacement stereo system was comparable to the two-year-old system removed from the 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) (holding that fair market value, not replacement value, is the correct measure of restitution damages); Santana v. State, 795 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (noting that the fair market value of property is deemed sufficient to compensate the victim of an offense for his loss.)
The order of restitution is vacated and the matter remanded to the trial court for a new restitution hearing to determine the value of the stereo system at the time it was stolen.
ORDER VACATED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, C.J., PETERSON and MONACO, JJ., concur. . The police report provides, “Aaron wrote a sworn statement stating that he will testify and prosecute: The speakers-amp box valued at $300.00, Sony XL-plod CD unit at $150.00 ... was found in the back seat of [Walters’] vehicle.” Although not specifically stated, one may logically assume that the victim provided the officer with the values reported. If true, then the cost of the replacement stereo is approximately double the cost of the original equipment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
I.M. a child v. State, 917 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…nd the State properly acknowledges that this argument was preserved for our review. Unless “special circumstances” are shown, FMV (rather than replacement value) is the appropriate measure of damages in calculating restitution. See Walters v. State, 888 So. 2d 150, 151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Domaceti v. State, 616 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (stating that restitution amount should be established with evidence of FMV at time of theft, absent circumstances showing FMV would not adequately compensate victim or…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 956 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…was the case here. Thompson explicitly testified that $280,000 was the price Tropieana would have received for the product from a retailer. Fair market value is generally the correct value to be used in determining restitution. See Walters v. State, 888 So. 2d 150, 151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). However, restitution is not intended to provide a victim with a windfall. Glaubius, 688 So. 2d at 916. In State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330, 333 (Fla. 1991), the supreme court foresaw that there would be situations where f…
-
J.D.H. v. State, 931 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…. 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 manner in which the item was used, the general condition and quality of…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Santana v. State, 795 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Immon Nabil Ibrahim v. State, 866 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- J.F.H. v. State, 849 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)