Thompson v. State
68 So. 3d 425
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant was convicted of burglary and grand theft; restitution was awarded by the trial court.
- The trial court calculated restitution by reducing the items' purchase price by about 10%, deeming the calculation “hardly scientific.”
- There was testimony about original purchase cost but no competent evidence of the items’ general condition, quality, or depreciation.
- The court relied on purchase price rather than fair market value (FMV), despite standards favoring FMV absent special circumstances.
- The appellate court must review for abuse of discretion and determine whether FMV or a justified exception supports restitution.
- The case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine FMV or establish special circumstances allowing purchase-price restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Restitution method—FMV vs purchase price | State argues FMV is proper unless special circumstances apply. | Appellant contends purchase price may be used. | FMV required unless special circumstances established. |
| Depreciation method—adequacy of 10% deduction | FMV requires consideration of depreciation with evidentiary basis. | No specific depreciation method provided. | Arbitrary depreciation without explanation = abuse of discretion. |
| Special circumstances to justify purchase-price restitution | State may show special circumstances permit purchase-price restitution. | Appellant argues no permissible special circumstances shown. | Remand to assess FMV or establish qualifying special circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Soriano v. State, 968 So.2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (restitution must be supported by FMV evidence; standard of review abuse of discretion)
- State v. Hawthorne, 573 So.2d 330 (Fla.1991) (FMV factors: original cost, use, condition, depreciation)
- Domaceti v. State, 616 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (FMV preferred absent circumstances to justify purchase-price restitution)
- Kiefer v. State, 909 So.2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (arbitrary depreciation without record support is abuse of discretion)
- Wolff v. State, 981 So.2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (no special circumstances found to permit purchase-price restitution)