Taylor v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Taylor v. State

27 So. 3d 149, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 552, 2010 WL 323027

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 29, 2010

Docket2D09-765

StatusPublished

This text of 27 So. 3d 149 (Taylor 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

Taylor v. State, 27 So. 3d 149, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 552, 2010 WL 323027 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Jason Taylor challenges a restitution order following his guilty plea to burglary of a conveyance and grand theft. He contends that the circuit court abused its discretion by basing the restitution order on the replacement values of the stolen items rather than their fair market values. We *150 disagree and conclude that the court’s election to employ replacement values was well within its discretion. See C.M.S. v. State, 997 So.2d 520, 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

Taylor also argues, correctly, that the restitution amount was based on faulty math. The victim testified to the following amounts: $106.49 for a radar detector, which included tax; $170.00 for a GPS; $129.99 for a camera; and $9.99 for the camera case. When added together, the total is $416.47. Taylor was ordered to pay $555.15 in restitution. That sum was not supported by the evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order and remand for the court to award restitution in the amount of $416.47.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

ALTENBERND, J, and CASE, JAMES R., Associate Senior Judge, Concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Jason Taylor challenges a restitution order following his guilty plea to burglary of a conveyance and grand theft. He contends that the circuit court abused its discretion by basing the restitution order on the replacement values of the stolen items rather than their fair market values. We *150 disagree and conclude that the court’s election to employ replacement values was well within its discretion. See C.M.S. v. State, 997 So.2d 520, 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

Taylor also argues, correctly, that the restitution amount was based on faulty math. The victim testified to the following amounts: $106.49 for a radar detector, which included tax; $170.00 for a GPS; $129.99 for a camera; and $9.99 for the camera case. When added together, the total is $416.47. Taylor was ordered to pay $555.15 in restitution. That sum was not supported by the evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order and remand for the court to award restitution in the amount of $416.47.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

ALTENBERND, J, and CASE, JAMES R., Associate Senior Judge, Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 So. 3d 149, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 552, 2010 WL 323027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack