KYLE GREGORY LEATHERWOOD, 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.
Kyle Leatherwood appeals a restitution order following his no-contest plea to grand theft. The appellate court reversed because the State failed to properly introduce an appraisal letter as a business record to prove the value of stolen jewelry, thus failing to establish restitution by substantial competent evidence.
The State failed to prove the amount of restitution with substantial competent evidence because it did not properly qualify the appraisal letter as a business record. The restitution order is reversed and the case is remanded for a new hearing to determine the proper amount of restitution.
[1] The State bears the burden of proving the amount of restitution by a preponderance of the evidence.
[2] Restitution must be proven by substantial competent evidence.
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“The burden of proving the amount of restitution is on the State, and the amount must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Restitution must be proved by substantial competent evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard that the State bears the burden of proving restitution by substantial competent evidence
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeatherwood pleaded no contest to grand theft involving four gold pieces of jewelry that were stolen and never recovered. At the restitution hearing, …
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 Burden Of Proof For Restitution Amount cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Kyle Leatherwood, appeals the order of restitution rendered after his open plea of no contest to the charge of grand theft. The victim did not testify at the restitution hearing regarding her opinion of the value of the four gold pieces of jewelry that were stolen by Leatherwood and never recovered. Over Leatherwood’s objections, the State sought *1155to introduce an appraisal letter from a jeweler to establish the value of the stolen jewelry. However, the State failed to properly qualify the letter as a business record pursuant to section 90.808(6) and section 90.902(11), Florida Statutes (2012). The State, therefore, failed to prove the amount of restitution with substantial competent evidence. See Koile v. State, 902 So.2d 822, 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“The burden of proving the amount of restitution is on the State, and the amount must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Restitution must be proved by substantial competent evidence.” (internal citations omitted)); see also Fernandez v. State, 98 So.3d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding that value of stolen items, which included jewelry, was not proven with substantial competent evidence and remanding for a new restitution hearing); Bellot v. State, 964 So.2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that State failed to prove certain restitution awards by substantial competent evidence and remanding for a new hearing); Walters v. State, 888 So.2d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). We reverse the restitution order under review and remand this case to the trial court for a new hearing to determine the proper amount of restitution.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, C.J. and COHEN, J., concur.
SAWAYA, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cricket Kathleen Toole v. State, 270 So. 3d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…ate, 42 So. 3d 177, 199 (Fla. 2010) (stating that a receipt is hearsay if "admitted for the truth of the matters asserted (the dates of the purchases, the amounts, the locations, and whether the purchases were made in cash)"). Leatherwood v. State, 108 So. 3d 1154, 1154-55 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) (holding that "an appraisal letter from a jeweler to establish the value of the stolen jewelry" was hearsay and was insufficient to establish the amount of restitution unless properly qualified as a business recor…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Koile v. State, 902 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Fernandez v. State, 98 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Walters v. State, 888 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Titus L. Bellot v. State, 964 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)