Lathrop v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lathrop v. State

568 So. 2d 545, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8270, 1990 WL 164959

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 25, 1990

DocketNo. 89-3246

StatusPublished

This text of 568 So. 2d 545 (Lathrop 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

Lathrop v. State, 568 So. 2d 545, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8270, 1990 WL 164959 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellants, Lathrop and Hogg, bring this appeal from the trial court’s order of restitution. Appellants point out that the only evidence of the stolen property’s value was the victim’s testimony, which was admittedly based on the value of the items when he paid for them or, alternatively, what they would cost to be replaced. They note this court has consistently held that “the value of property at the time of the offense is the way of determining the amount of loss for inclusion in the restitution provision of a probation order.” Hawthorne v. State, 558 So.2d 156, 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) [emphasis in the original]. The state is in agreement with appellants and concedes that the court’s order of restitution should be reversed and the cause remanded for further [546]*546proceedings to determine the fair market value of the items stolen.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur.

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

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellants, Lathrop and Hogg, bring this appeal from the trial court’s order of restitution. Appellants point out that the only evidence of the stolen property’s value was the victim’s testimony, which was admittedly based on the value of the items when he paid for them or, alternatively, what they would cost to be replaced. They note this court has consistently held that “the value of property at the time of the offense is the way of determining the amount of loss for inclusion in the restitution provision of a probation order.” Hawthorne v. State, 558 So.2d 156, 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) [emphasis in the original]. The state is in agreement with appellants and concedes that the court’s order of restitution should be reversed and the cause remanded for further [546]*546proceedings to determine the fair market value of the items stolen.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 So. 2d 545, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8270, 1990 WL 164959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lathrop-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack