Haven v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Haven v. State

846 So. 2d 1272, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8776, 2003 WL 21347314

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 11, 2003

DocketNo. 4D02-2363

StatusPublished

This text of 846 So. 2d 1272 (Haven 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

Haven v. State, 846 So. 2d 1272, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8776, 2003 WL 21347314 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAHOOD, J.

We affirm appellant’s grand theft conviction in all respects, however, we write to address the restitution ordered by the court. The court ordered that appellant pay the victim $3,300 in restitution. We hold that the trial court erred where the evidence presented did not support the award. The victim testified that appellant stole $1,500 worth of tools. As to the other items allegedly taken, including the Nextel phone and pager, no evidence was presented as to the value of those items. In addition, the trial court improperly included in the restitution amount, $1,400 for an unpaid loan. This loan was not the subject of the charges against appellant and did not directly or indirectly relate to the offense charged. See Glaubius v. State, 688 So.2d 913, 915 (Fla.1997).

[1273]*1273Accordingly, we direct that the amount of restitution be reduced to $1,500. Appellant need not be present for this reduction.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

SHAHOOD, J.

We affirm appellant’s grand theft conviction in all respects, however, we write to address the restitution ordered by the court. The court ordered that appellant pay the victim $3,300 in restitution. We hold that the trial court erred where the evidence presented did not support the award. The victim testified that appellant stole $1,500 worth of tools. As to the other items allegedly taken, including the Nextel phone and pager, no evidence was presented as to the value of those items. In addition, the trial court improperly included in the restitution amount, $1,400 for an unpaid loan. This loan was not the subject of the charges against appellant and did not directly or indirectly relate to the offense charged. See Glaubius v. State, 688 So.2d 913, 915 (Fla.1997).

[1273]*1273Accordingly, we direct that the amount of restitution be reduced to $1,500. Appellant need not be present for this reduction.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

846 So. 2d 1272, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8776, 2003 WL 21347314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haven-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack