Epley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Epley v. State

11 So. 3d 1006, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 8919, 2009 WL 1905043

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 6, 2009

Docket1D08-5296

StatusPublished

This text of 11 So. 3d 1006 (Epley 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

Epley v. State, 11 So. 3d 1006, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 8919, 2009 WL 1905043 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order of restitution awarding $3,597.91, representing the replacement value of the goods stolen. Fair market value, however, rather than replacement value, is the correct measure of restitution. See Walters v. State, 888 So.2d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). In the absence of any record evidence establishing that the fair market value of the stolen items would not adequately compensate the victim for his loss, we must reverse. The evidence presented by the State established the fair market value at $1,850. We accordingly REVERSE and REMAND for the trial court to enter a restitution order in the amount of $1,850.

WOLF, KAHN, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order of restitution awarding $3,597.91, representing the replacement value of the goods stolen. Fair market value, however, rather than replacement value, is the correct measure of restitution. See Walters v. State, 888 So.2d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). In the absence of any record evidence establishing that the fair market value of the stolen items would not adequately compensate the victim for his loss, we must reverse. The evidence presented by the State established the fair market value at $1,850. We accordingly REVERSE and REMAND for the trial court to enter a restitution order in the amount of $1,850.

WOLF, KAHN, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 So. 3d 1006, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 8919, 2009 WL 1905043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/epley-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack