Matthews v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Matthews v. State

115 So. 3d 436, 2013 WL 2650874, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9398

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 14, 2013

DocketNo. 5D12-2233

StatusPublished

This text of 115 So. 3d 436 (Matthews 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

Matthews v. State, 115 So. 3d 436, 2013 WL 2650874, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9398 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James Matthews appeals an award of restitution in the amount of $10,378.61, entered following an evidentiary hearing held after he pled no contest to petit theft for stealing various items from the victim’s [437]*437car. We affirm as to the amounts ordered for towing, rental car expenses, the GPS device, the tennis racquets, and the watches. We reverse as to the remaining items, finding the State failed to present competent evidence as to the fair market value of those items. The depreciation amounts assigned by the judge were effectively pulled out of thin air because the State made no effort to properly value the items. See J.D.H. v. State, 931 So.2d 241, 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“A determination of the fair market value takes into consideration the original market cost, the manner in which the item was used, the general condition and quality of the item, and the percentage of depreciation.”). We remand to allow for additional evidence of the fair market value of those remaining items.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, COHEN and BERGER, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

James Matthews appeals an award of restitution in the amount of $10,378.61, entered following an evidentiary hearing held after he pled no contest to petit theft for stealing various items from the victim’s [437]*437car. We affirm as to the amounts ordered for towing, rental car expenses, the GPS device, the tennis racquets, and the watches. We reverse as to the remaining items, finding the State failed to present competent evidence as to the fair market value of those items. The depreciation amounts assigned by the judge were effectively pulled out of thin air because the State made no effort to properly value the items. See J.D.H. v. State, 931 So.2d 241, 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“A determination of the fair market value takes into consideration the original market cost, the manner in which the item was used, the general condition and quality of the item, and the percentage of depreciation.”). We remand to allow for additional evidence of the fair market value of those remaining items.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, COHEN and BERGER, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 So. 3d 436, 2013 WL 2650874, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack