Thompson v. State
| Decision Date | 07 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D08–1822.,4D08–1822. |
| Citation | 68 So.3d 425 |
| Parties | Darnell THOMPSON, Appellant,v.STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Edward Hoeg, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sue–Ellen Kenny, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.PER CURIAM.
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding restitution following appellant's conviction for burglary and grand theft. We reverse, as the trial court awarded restitution based on purchase price without adequately calculating the fair market value of the stolen items.
We review a trial court's determination of the amount of restitution for an abuse of discretion. Soriano v. State, 968 So.2d 112, 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). The amount of restitution must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. Id. Generally, the amount of restitution is established through evidence of fair market value of the stolen items at the time of the theft. Id. at 115. Fair market value is calculated by reference to four factors: (1) the original market cost; (2) the manner in which the items were used; (3) the general condition and quality of the items; and (4) the percentage of depreciation. State v. Hawthorne, 573 So.2d 330, 332 (Fla.1991). This court has consistently recognized that a trial court is not limited to consideration of fair market value, but “absent circumstances tending to show that [fair market value] does not adequately compensate the victim or otherwise serve the purpose of restitution,” fair market value should be used. Domaceti v. State, 616 So.2d 1148, 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (citation omitted).
We find the victim's testimony from personal knowledge regarding the purchase price and purchase date to be competent evidence to substantiate the items' original cost. See Gonzalez v. State, 40 So.3d 86, 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). The record, however, contains no competent evidence of the “general condition and quality of the items” or the percentage of depreciation that would permit the trial court to calculate market value. The trial court awarded $68,000 in restitution by reducing the purchase price of the items by “approximately ten percent” in a calculation the trial court termed “hardly scientific.” Application of such an arbitrary percentage of depreciation, without an explanation or record support, was an abuse of discretion. Kiefer v. State, 909 So.2d 572, 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). The trial court also identified no special circumstances that would permit it to award purchase price in lieu of fair market value. See Wolff v. State, 981 So.2d 651, 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
Accordingly, we reverse the order of restitution and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine either...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Toole v. State
...merely provided replacement cost guesstimates. This testimony was insufficient to establish fair market value.In Thompson v. State , 68 So.3d 425, 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) we reversed a restitution award because it was "based on purchase price without adequately calculating the fair market v......
-
Silky v. State
...from the original judgment and sentence. E.g. , James v. State , 223 So.3d 288, 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ; Thompson v. State , 68 So.3d 425, 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) ; Sage v. State , 988 So.2d 150, 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) ; Soriano v. State , 968 So.2d 112, 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).We decline......
-
Morrill v. State
...DCA 2013) (remanding because the court did not have evidence of the fair market value at the time of the theft); Thompson v. State , 68 So.3d 425, 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (remanding when only evidence of purchase date and price was presented); Wolff v. State , 981 So.2d 651, 653 (Fla. 4th D......
-
Toole v. State, 4D17-2115
...of restitution is established through evidence of fair market value of the stolen items at the time of the theft." Thompson v. State, 68 So. 3d 425, 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). "Fair market value is calculated by reference to four factors: (1) the original market cost; (2) the manner in which ......
-
Judgment and sentence
...victim can testify to the original price, but there also must be evidence of the item’s general condition or quality. Thompson v. State, 68 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) The court errs in ordering restitution for repairs to the victim’s home when the victim did not testify to what was repa......