PABLO BENIGNO SANCHEZ-GUTIERREZ, 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.
Sanchez-Gutierrez appeals a restitution order requiring him to compensate a crash victim and her insurer. The court affirmed restitution for medical expenses but reversed the restitution award for the victim's totaled automobile because it was based on inadmissible hearsay evidence, and remanded for a new hearing on that issue.
The court affirmed the restitution for medical expenses and ambulance service but reversed the restitution for the vehicle's value because it was based on inadmissible hearsay evidence properly objected to by the defendant.
[1] Restitution awards must be based upon competent evidence.
[2] Written repair estimates offered to prove the cost of repairs are inadmissible hearsay if not falling under a statutory exception.
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 intelligence“hearsay cannot be used to determine the amount of restitution if the defendant raises a bona fide challenge to the amount”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that hearsay evidence is inadmissible for restitution determinations when properly challenged by the defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSanchez-Gutierrez crashed into a car driven by Terry DiMicco. The trial court ordered him to pay $1766.97 to DiMicco for medical expenses and $5188.66…
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 Award cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Pablo Benigno Sanchez-Gutierrez appeals from the order requiring him to pay $1766.97 in restitution to Terry DiMicco, the driver of a car he crashed into, and $5188.66 to her insurer, Geico Insurance. The restitution award was to compensate the victim and her insurance company for amounts paid for the victim’s medical expenses and for damage to the victim’s car.
We find no merit in Sanchez-Gutierrez’s challenge to the evidence the State used to establish how much the victim and her insurer paid for ambulance service and medical treatment.
Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the restitution order.
However, we agree, and the State concedes, that we must reverse the portion of the order awarding restitution to the victim and her insurer for the value of the victim’s totaled automobile because the awards were based on hearsay evidence properly objected to by Sanchez-Gutierrez. See Flanagan v. State, 536 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (stating that hearsay cannot be used to determine the amount of restitution if the defendant raises a bona fide challenge to the amount); see also Williams v. State, 850 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that the trial court erred in basing the restitution award on estimates for repair costs for the stolen car because they were not provided by the repair shops themselves and were objected to as being inadmissible hearsay).
Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the order, and we remand to the trial court for another restitution hearing to determine the proper amount of restitution owed to the victim and her insurer for the damage to her automobile. See Bellot v. State, 964 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (remanding the case for a new restitution hearing to determine the proper amounts owed to the victims and the insurance company).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
DAVIS and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.L.D. v. State, 4 So. 3d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…towing costs. That objection should have been sustained because the State produced no documentary evidence to support the cost of the towing services, and these amounts were not based on the knowledge of the witness. See Sanchez-Gutierrez v. State, 981 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Indeed the State presented no evidence that the vehicle had been towed or reasonably needed to be towed. We therefore reverse that part of the restitution order awarding $125 for the towing of the victim’s vehicle. Affirmed in p…
-
Garcia v. State, 62 So. 3d 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…ing value cannot be established solely on hearsay evidence); J.L. v. State, 684 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (reversing because value was based only on hearsay evidence, to which defendant properly objected); accord Sanchez-Gutierrez v. State, 981 So. 2d 632, 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (remanding for a new restitution hearing because the value had been established by hearsay evidence that was [*1281] properly objected to); Louis v. State, 654 So. 2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (vacating the portion of the…
-
Levy v. State, 179 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…ate, 850 So. 2d 627, 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Conversely, hearsay evidence is insufficient to determine the amount of restitution if, as here, the defendant raises a timely hearsay objection to that restitution amount. See Sanchez-Gutierrez v. State, 981 So. 2d 632, 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Williams, 850 So. 2d at 628 (holding that the trial court erred where, over defendant’s timely hearsay objection, it based the restitution award on hearsay evidence). Accordingly, we reverse the $5200 portion of the restit…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 850 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Flanagan v. State, 536 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Titus L. Bellot v. State, 964 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)