S.A.E. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

S.A.E. v. State

741 So. 2d 1248, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13158, 1999 WL 790655

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 6, 1999

DocketNo. 98-03628

StatusPublished

This text of 741 So. 2d 1248 (S.A.E. 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

S.A.E. v. State, 741 So. 2d 1248, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13158, 1999 WL 790655 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

S.A.E. appeals from an order directing him to pay $13,671 in restitution for jewelry he stole from a residence. S.A.E. does not contest that he is obligated to pay restitution, he only objects to the amount of restitution. He maintains that the State presented nothing but hearsay testimony at the restitution hearing to establish the amount of the victim’s loss. S.A.E. objected to this hearsay evidence. The State concedes error. We agree that the State failed to carry its burden of proof as to the amount of loss. Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order and remand this case for another hearing to determine the amount of restitution. See Atkins v. State, [1249]*1249728 So.2d 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); B.L.N. v. State, 722 So.2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Thomas v. State, 581 So.2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

S.A.E. appeals from an order directing him to pay $13,671 in restitution for jewelry he stole from a residence. S.A.E. does not contest that he is obligated to pay restitution, he only objects to the amount of restitution. He maintains that the State presented nothing but hearsay testimony at the restitution hearing to establish the amount of the victim’s loss. S.A.E. objected to this hearsay evidence. The State concedes error. We agree that the State failed to carry its burden of proof as to the amount of loss. Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order and remand this case for another hearing to determine the amount of restitution. See Atkins v. State, [1249]*1249728 So.2d 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); B.L.N. v. State, 722 So.2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Thomas v. State, 581 So.2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

741 So. 2d 1248, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13158, 1999 WL 790655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sae-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack