Jacobs v. State

12 So. 3d 1256, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 8633, 2009 WL 1770128
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Jacobs v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 6383
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 24, 2009·No. 1D08-4528·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Jacobs appeals a restitution order arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay $21,000 in restitution when the State produced no evidence that the túpelo honey which he was charged with fraudulently taking from the victim was worth $1.47 per pound rather than $1.25 per pound. The State concedes that the trial court’s award of restitution was based on speculation and contends the proper remedy is to reverse the order and allow the State to provide supplemental evidence that the proper measure of damages is $1.47 per pound or, in the absence of further evidence, the trial court should enter a restitution order in the amount of $16,252. We agree. Forlano v. State, 964 So.2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Aboyoun v. State, 842 So.2d 238, 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

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

Jacobs v. State, 12 So. 3d 1256, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 8633, 2009 WL 1770128 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

12 So. 3d 1256 (Jacobs v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Forlano v. State
964 So. 2d 246 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Aboyoun v. State
842 So. 2d 238 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)