Zeisset v. State

107 So. 3d 1252, 2013 WL 950514, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3931
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 13, 2013·No. No. 3D12-1025·Published

Opinion

On Confession of Error

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

The defendant appeals from an order determining the amount of restitution required for unreturned items of personal property — a TV, a play station, and the like — which he took from a locker unit he had burglarized. The state commendably confesses that the trial court erred in determining the amount of restitution on the basis only of the cost of the items’ replacement. To the contrary, the applicable standard is the fair market value of the property, as to which the State introduced no evidence below. See J.D.H. v. State, 931 So.2d 241, 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Aboyoun v. State, 842 So.2d 238, 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); State v. Hawthorne, 573 So.2d 330 (Fla.1991). Accordingly, as both sides agree, the order under review is vacated for a new hearing at which the State will be required to establish the fair market value of the items taken from the victims.

Vacated and remanded.

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

Zeisset v. State, 107 So. 3d 1252, 2013 WL 950514, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3931 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

107 So. 3d 1252 (Zeisset v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Hawthorne
573 So. 2d 330 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)
Aboyoun v. State
842 So. 2d 238 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
J.D.H. v. State
931 So. 2d 241 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)