THOMAS FITZGERALD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Proof Of Value cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1251] PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of a restitution order entered as to property stolen from victims who are mother and daughter. We reverse the restitution only as to the value of the mother’s stolen purse and wallet, as these values were -based solely on the prices found in a catalog. The hearsay evidence as to catalog prices was the only proof of value presented by the state. See Walentukonis v. State, 932 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (reversing restitution where the trial court took judicial notice of “the NADA Blue Book Average Retail Value” without other evidence as to the value of a truck); M.M.S. v. State, 877 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding “trial court improperly relied on hearsay evidence in determining the value of a stolen ring”); Aboyoun v. State, 842 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (remanding for a new restitution hearing where the only evidence offered to establish the value of four necklaces was the victim’s testimony he had received the necklaces as gifts from his parents, and his parents informed him of how much they had paid for the necklaces); Korica v. State, 791 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (reversing because the victim had no personal knowledge of the value of any missing items, but testified as to the value based on telephone conversations with her mother and the stores where the items were purchased).
Therefore, we reverse and remand for a new restitution hearing as to the fair market value of the mother’s purse and the wallet.
STONE, FARMER and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. State, 40 So. 3d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…have a sufficient predicate upon which to base his or her opinion on the value of items stolen. Peters v. State, 555 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Catalog prices alone are insufficient to establish a sufficient predicate. Fitzgerald v. State, 952 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Second, a trial court is not limited to, but may rely on, fair market value in ordering restitution. Wolff v. State, 981 So. 2d 651, 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). “While the court is not restricted to fair market value in dete…
-
Phillips v. State (15th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2013)…3d 174, 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (recognizing that evidence of the original purchase price is not sufficient to sustain an award of restitution when the items were purchased years earlier because depreciation must be considered); Fitzgerald v. State, 952 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (finding that awarding restitution based on the catalog price of an item is not sufficient and remanding to determine the fair market value.) Although the price of comparable items is relevant, evidence of the fair market value o…
Authorities Cited
- Aboyoun v. State, 842 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Korica v. State, 791 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Walentukonis v. State, 932 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- M.M.S. v. State, 877 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Dumas v. State, 877 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)