S.M. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

S.M. v. State

665 So. 2d 355, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13399, 1995 WL 761205

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 28, 1995

DocketNo. 95-2494

StatusPublished

This text of 665 So. 2d 355 (S.M. 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.M. v. State, 665 So. 2d 355, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13399, 1995 WL 761205 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from an order establishing restitution. Because we find the amount determined by the lower court is not adequately supported by the evidence presented, we reverse and remand.

To determine the fair market value of the merchandise stolen, the trial court multiplied the total retail value of the merchandise by .80, the alleged average percentage cost. Although we approve of the method used, we find no competent evidence to support the use of the 80 percent multiplier. At the restitution hearing, the victim testified as to value by comparing the costs and retail prices of several of the items stolen. Not one example yielded a percentage cost of 80 percent.¹

As to the stolen computer, the State only presented evidence which showed the computer’s original cost some four years ago. We hold that such evidence is inadequate to establish the computer’s fair market value, especially where the victim admitted that the price of computers has decreased. See, e.g., Domaceti v. State, 616 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA1993).

Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for a new restitution hearing as to these items.

ERVIN, BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from an order establishing restitution. Because we find the amount determined by the lower court is not adequately supported by the evidence presented, we reverse and remand.

To determine the fair market value of the merchandise stolen, the trial court multiplied the total retail value of the merchandise by .80, the alleged average percentage cost. Although we approve of the method used, we find no competent evidence to support the use of the 80 percent multiplier. At the restitution hearing, the victim testified as to value by comparing the costs and retail prices of several of the items stolen. Not one example yielded a percentage cost of 80 percent.¹

As to the stolen computer, the State only presented evidence which showed the computer’s original cost some four years ago. We hold that such evidence is inadequate to establish the computer’s fair market value, especially where the victim admitted that the price of computers has decreased. See, e.g., Domaceti v. State, 616 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA1993).

Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for a new restitution hearing as to these items.

ERVIN, BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

665 So. 2d 355, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13399, 1995 WL 761205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sm-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack