Allen v. State
162 So. 3d 1055
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Allen pled guilty to grand theft of a motor vehicle and was placed on probation with a restitution obligation.
- At the restitution hearing, the victim testified about a Coach purse and wallet valued at about $527.97 shown by a store printout.
- The victim also testified to vehicle damage with a repair estimate of $3,006.84.
- The trial court awarded $3,000 for car damage and $500 for the purse and wallet.
- Allen objected, contending the State failed to prove the losses with competent evidence, including objections to hearsay.
- The appellate court held restitution must be supported by competent evidence and reversed and remanded for a new restitution hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the restitution amount was supported by competent evidence | Allen argues the State failed to prove losses with competent evidence. | State contends evidence presented justifies the restitution amounts. | Restitution must be based on competent evidence; the evidence here was insufficient. |
| Whether the written repair estimate is admissible to prove repair costs | State did not lay proper foundation for the written estimate; hearsay problem. | Not explicitly stated; focus is on admissibility and foundation. | No business-record or other exception properly established; the estimate is inadmissible hearsay for restitution purposes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glaubius v. State, 688 So.2d 913 (Fla. 1997) (restitution must be supported by competent evidence; burden on state)
- Moore v. State, 694 So.2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (state bears burden to prove amount by preponderance)
- Aboyoun v. State, 842 So.2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (victim's testimony about value admissible if based on personal knowledge)
- State v. Hawthorne, 573 So.2d 330 (Fla. 1991) (recognizes admissible forms of evidence for value)
- M.M.S. v. State, 877 So.2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (store estimate of value may be inadmissible unless properly sourced)
- I.M. v. State, 958 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (witness must have personal knowledge of value)
- T.J.N. v. State, 977 So.2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (hearsay rule applies to repair estimates unless declarant testifies or qualifies for exception)
- Williams v. State, 850 So.2d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (restitution reversed when based on inadmissible hearsay estimates)
- Sherwood v. State, 832 So.2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (remand for new restitution hearing when award based on improper hearsay)