5D02-696 J.F.H. v. State

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D02-696

Case Date: 01/27/2003

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2003

J.F.H., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion Filed January 31, 2003 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Sandra Edwards-Stephens, Judge. James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Charlie Crist, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Angela D. McCravy, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. The defendant below, J.F.H., was charged by delinquency petition with burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and grand theft of $300 or more but less than $20,000. He had apparently acted as a lookout while his two co-defendants took numerous items from the dwelling. J.F.H. pled nolo contendere to the charges.1 The trial court withheld adjudication CASE NO. 5D02-696

J.F.H. initially pled not guilty to the charges, but changed his plea to nolo contendere pursuant to a plea agreement.

1

of delinquency and placed J.F.H. on probation. J.F.H. now appeals, contending that the trial court erred in awarding $3,084.92 in restitution because the court failed to base its order on fair market value and to consider salvage value. We find no error in the values ascribed to the several items at issue save one. Among the stolen items was a three-to-four-year-old computer. At the time of its return, it was inoperable. The victim replaced it by purchasing a new computer. The trial court awarded the purchase price of the new computer, $1,112.98. However, fair market value, not replacement value, is the correct measure of damages. No evidence of the fair market value of the used computer was offered. We accordingly strike this sum from the restitution award, thereby reducing the restitution to $1, 971.94. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. SHARP, W., and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. ORFINGER, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, with opinion.

-2-

ORFINGER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part

5D02-696

I concur with the majority that restitution for the computer was improperly calculated. I disagree, however, with the majority's decision to strike the award, rather than remanding the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. Remand would allow the State the opportunity to prove the fair market value of the damaged computer. The right to restitution of an innocent crime victim is of constitutional and statutory importance. See generally Art. I,

Download 5D02-696 J.F.H. v. State.pdf