K.T. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

K.T. v. State

162 So. 3d 13, 2014 WL 940649, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3459

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 2014

DocketNo. 4D12-4295

StatusPublished

This text of 162 So. 3d 13 (K.T. 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

K.T. v. State, 162 So. 3d 13, 2014 WL 940649, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3459 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following a no contest plea to charges of burglary of a dwelling and petit theft, defendant K.T. was placed on probation and ordered to pay restitution. In this appeal, K.T. challenges the order of restitution, arguing the evidence was insufficient to establish the fair market value of the stolen items at the time of the theft. Accepting the State’s concession of error, we reverse the order of restitution and remand for further proceedings. See Thompson v. State, 68 So.3d 425, 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (stating “amount of restitution is established through evidence of fair market value of the stolen items at the time of the theft” and listing factors to be considered, including depreciation); Soriano v. State, 968 So.2d 112, 114-15 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (holding victim’s unsubstantiated opinion or speculation as to fair market value at the time of the theft is insufficient to sustain a restitution order).

Reversed and Remanded.

STEVENSON, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Following a no contest plea to charges of burglary of a dwelling and petit theft, defendant K.T. was placed on probation and ordered to pay restitution. In this appeal, K.T. challenges the order of restitution, arguing the evidence was insufficient to establish the fair market value of the stolen items at the time of the theft. Accepting the State’s concession of error, we reverse the order of restitution and remand for further proceedings. See Thompson v. State, 68 So.3d 425, 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (stating “amount of restitution is established through evidence of fair market value of the stolen items at the time of the theft” and listing factors to be considered, including depreciation); Soriano v. State, 968 So.2d 112, 114-15 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (holding victim’s unsubstantiated opinion or speculation as to fair market value at the time of the theft is insufficient to sustain a restitution order).

Reversed and Remanded.

STEVENSON, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 So. 3d 13, 2014 WL 940649, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kt-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack