Lathrop v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lathrop v. State

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

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lathrop v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 13 Fla. L. Weekly 637 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 25, 1990·No. No. 89-3246·Published

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.

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

Pincite

568 So. 2d 545 (Lathrop v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related