D.C., 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.
D.C. appealed a restitution order imposed following his no-contest plea to burglary and petit theft, arguing the restitution amount lacked evidentiary support. The court agreed and reversed, holding that restitution awards must be based on competent, substantial evidence of fair market value, not speculation or ad hoc judicial determination.
The restitution award was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Fair market value must be established through specific evidence including original cost, manner of use, condition, and depreciation percentage, not mere prosecutor speculation. The trial court erred in simply accepting the State Attorney's suggested amount without independently evaluating fair market value.
[1] The State bears the burden of proving the amount of restitution, and the restitution award must be supported by competent substantial evidence.
[2] Evidence of restitution must be established through more than mere speculation; it must be based on competent evidence.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“this does not mean ... that a trial court can arbitrarily award any amount of restitution it deems adequate”
Establishes that while trial courts have discretion in restitution, they cannot award amounts without evidentiary support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD.C. and two others burgled a home. At the restitution hearing, the victims testified about stolen property, initially claiming more items were taken …
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 Amount cases and more on FLexlaw
D.C. appeals a restitution order following his no contest plea to burglary and petit theft. He argues, and we agree, that the restitution amount was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Accordingly, we reverse.
D.C., along with his brother and another juvenile, burgled a home. At the restitution hearing, the husband-and-wife victims testified regarding the property allegedly stolen from their home. The investigating officers also testified. The couple claimed that more property was stolen than they had initially reported. The prosecutor then attempted to summarize the victims’ testimony and suggested reductions in value for depreciation. Defense counsel objected to the amounts and to the award of restitution for items that were never reported to the police as stolen or for items that the police said they recovered. The trial court announced that it would “award restitution in the amount suggested by the State Attorney.” The subsequent order awarded restitution of $652.34.
A trial court has discretion to determine the amount of restitution and is not required to abide by “a rigid standard of proof.” State v. Hawthorne, 573 So.2d 330, 332-33 (Fla.1991). “[T]his does not mean ... that a trial court can arbitrarily award any amount of restitution it deems adequate.” Fernandez v. State, 98 So.3d 730, 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (quoting Glaubius v. State, 688 So.2d 913, 915 (Fla.1997)). Generally, restitution will be based on the fair market value of the property at the time of the offense, and this case does not present any exception to the general rule. See Hawthorne, 573 So.2d at 333.
Fair market value can be established through evidence of “(1) original market cost; (2) manner in which the item was used; (3) the general condition and quality of the item; and (4) the percentage of depreciation;” Id. at 332 (citing Negron *1266 v. State, 306 So.2d 104, 108 (Fla.1974), receded from on other grounds, Butterworth ex rel. Broward Cnty. v. Fluellen, 389 So.2d 968 (Fla.1980)). An owner is generally qualified to offer testimony on the fair market value of his or her property. Id. at 3336 n. 6.
In this case, however, the owners’ testimony was incomplete because they simply furnished purchase prices for the stolen items, not the fair market value. And in several cases, they provided a range of prices. Some of the items were several years old, leading the prosecutor to propose depreciated values based on nothing more than her ad hoc sense of what seemed fair. The prosecutor’s assertions were not competent, substantial evidence. See Molter v. State, 892 So.2d 1115, 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). A restitution award must be based on competent evidence, not on mere speculation. Fernandez, 98 So.3d at 732. We reverse and remand for a new restitution hearing.
Reversed.
SILBERMAN, C.J., and CRENSHAW, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Honorable Robert A. Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1991)
- Ozzie Joseph Negron and Teresa Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1974)
- Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1997)
- Molter v. State, 892 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Fernandez v. State, 98 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)