Angry v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Angry v. State

102 So. 3d 767, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21755, 2012 WL 6603067

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 19, 2012

DocketNo. 1D12-1557

StatusPublished

This text of 102 So. 3d 767 (Angry v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Angry v. State, 102 So. 3d 767, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21755, 2012 WL 6603067 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges a restitution order which was entered pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes, upon evidence as to the value of some items, and the purchase price of others. Although market value is not the exclusive standard for restitution, it is the appropriate measure in the absence of circumstances warranting a different approach. See, e.g., State v. Hawthorne, 573 So.2d 330 (Fla.1991); Hagan v. State, 746 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see also Thompson v. State, 68 So.3d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Because restitution was not predicated on such circumstances in the present case, the restitution order is reversed as to those amounts which were based on purchase price ($450 for a camera, $400 for a handgun and holster and bullets, $499 for a laptop computer) rather than market value. The appealed order is therefore affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and the case is remanded.

DAVIS, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges a restitution order which was entered pursuant to section 775.089, Florida Statutes, upon evidence as to the value of some items, and the purchase price of others. Although market value is not the exclusive standard for restitution, it is the appropriate measure in the absence of circumstances warranting a different approach. See, e.g., State v. Hawthorne, 573 So.2d 330 (Fla.1991); Hagan v. State, 746 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see also Thompson v. State, 68 So.3d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Because restitution was not predicated on such circumstances in the present case, the restitution order is reversed as to those amounts which were based on purchase price ($450 for a camera, $400 for a handgun and holster and bullets, $499 for a laptop computer) rather than market value. The appealed order is therefore affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and the case is remanded.

DAVIS, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 So. 3d 767, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21755, 2012 WL 6603067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/angry-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack