Wimbush v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wimbush v. State

571 So. 2d 586, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9798, 1990 WL 211751

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 28, 1990

DocketNo. 90-1172

StatusPublished

This text of 571 So. 2d 586 (Wimbush 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

Wimbush v. State, 571 So. 2d 586, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9798, 1990 WL 211751 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

GARRETT, Judge.

The issue on appeal is whether appellant should be ordered to make restitution.

Appellant used a stolen Citibank Visa credit card to buy $965.17 worth of merchandise from Macy’s. After her arrest, the police convinced appellant to return the merchandise to Macy’s. Citibank reimbursed Macy’s for the loss. The contract between Citibank and Maey’s did not require Many’s to credit Citibank when fraudulently purchased merchandise was returned.

We reverse and remand on the authority of Jones v. State, 480 So.2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (a defendant should not be required to make restitution to the victim for property which has been returned or will be returned to the victim). Appellant made restitution when she returned the merchandise, she should not have to make restitution a second time because Citibank has contracted away its right to be reimbursed by Macy’s.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs. POLEN, J., concurs in result only without opinion.

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