BRANDON DAVARIA HUDSON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court's restitution order must be supported by competent evidence of the amount of loss, and where the State presents no evidence of the loss amount beyond the victim's testimony regarding specific items taken, the restitution order must be reversed and remanded for a new hearing.
[1] Under Florida Statutes section 775.089, the State bears the burden of establishing the amount of restitution through competent evidence rather than speculation, and a res…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Such evidence must be established through more than mere speculation; it must be based on competent evidence.”
Court citing Glaubius v. State regarding the standard for establishing restitution amounts
Hudson was convicted of armed robbery with a firearm. At sentencing, the victim testified that several items were taken during the robbery—a Rolex wat…
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 Robbery With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 22, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-0744
Lower Tribunal No. F23-12659
Brandon Davaria Hudson,
Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David Young, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Linda S. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, LINDSEY and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Brandon Davaria Hudson challenges his conviction and sentence for armed robbery with a firearm. We affirm the conviction without discussion. As to his sentence, Hudson maintains that the order imposing restitution in the amount of $29,000 is not supported by competent evidence. We agree.
Section 775.089, Florida Statutes, requires a trial court to order restitution to the victim for damages or loss caused by the offense unless there is a clear and compelling reason not to. § 775.089(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023). In its determination, the trial court “shall consider the amount of the loss sustained.” Id. at (6)(a). The State carries the burden to establish the amount of loss. Id. at (7)(c). “Such evidence must be established through more than mere speculation; it must be based on competent evidence.” Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913, 916 (Fla. 1997). Yet the State did not present any evidence as to the amount of loss at trial or the sentencing hearing. The victim simply testified that several items were taken from him during the robbery—a Rolex watch, a chain, and his wallet, which contained approximately $500. Because the amount was not supported by competent evidence, we reverse the restitution and remand for a new restitution hearing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
2