H.L.C., A CHILD, 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 a restitution order will be affirmed if supported by competent evidence, even if the State confesses error.
Appellant was adjudicated guilty of grand theft for stealing a firearm, holster, and ammunition. The victim testified regarding the purchase price, co…
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 Restitution Order cases and more on FLexlaw
EVANDER, J.
Notwithstanding the State’s confession of error, we affirm the trial court’s restitution order. In a restitution proceeding, it is the State’s burden to prove the amount of loss for restitution purposes. Domaceti v. State, 616 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. Santana v. State, 795 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Fairmarket value is generally the appropriate value to be utilized in determining the amount of restitution. Ibrahim v. State, 866 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
In the present case, appellant was adjudicated guilty of grand theft. He had stolen a firearm, a holster and a small amount of ammunition from the victim. The victim testified as to the date he purchased each of these items, the respective purchase prices, their condition at the time of the theft, and their respective replacement values. Although the victim did not use the term “fair market value” in his testimony, the trial court specifically found the fair market value of the pistol was $700, the holster $50, and the ammunition $10.
We review an order of restitution using an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330 (Fla.1991). The issue is whether the restitution order was supported by competent evidence. J.D.H. v. State, 931 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
Here, there was competent evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion as to the fair market value of each of the stolen items. As we have previously stated: “Fair market value takes into consideration not only the purchase price, but the manner in which the item was used, its condition and depreciation.” Ibrahim, 866 So. 2d at 750.
AFFIRMED.
TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
BOX v. State, 993 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…d bears a significant relationship to the defendant’s offense. Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913, 915 (Fla.1997). It is the burden of the State to prove the amount of loss for restitution purposes by a preponderance of the evidence. H.L.C. v. State, 950 So. 2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In order to prove the amount of restitution owed to the Division, we have previously held that the State may introduce into evidence, based on the public records exception to the hearsay rule,1 a sworn…
-
J.R. v. State, 141 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…contends that the total restitution amount of $4082 was not supported by competent substantial evidence; the victim testified as to only the purchase prices of the stolen items. The extent of the victim’s testimony is not fatal. See H.L.C. v. State, 950 So. 2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding testimony as to purchase dates and prices, condition at time of theft, and replacement values supported finding of fair market value); Bakos v. State, 698 So. 2d 943, 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (affirming restitution…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1991)
- Domaceti v. State, 616 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- 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.D.H. v. State, 931 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)