ARDELL LOUIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
We find no merit to most of the appellant’s points on appeal and therefore affirm the convictions and sentences below with but two exceptions. First, the judgment form must be corrected to reflect that burglary of a structure is a third degree felony. Second, the amount ordered in restitution is improperly supported only by hearsay evidence of value. See Delks v. State, 622 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); House v. State, 614 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Thomas v. State, 581 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Hence, that portion of the restitution order is vacated and the cause remanded for a new hearing on the valuation issue alone.
Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 941 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…In proving the amount of the loss, the State may not rely on hearsay testimony when the defense properly objects to its introduction. J.D. v. State, 693 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); J.L. v. State, 684 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Louis v. State, 654 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Delks v. State, 622 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). ANALYSIS In this case, there is no question or dispute that actual costs were incurred— the victim’s body was returned to and funeral expenses were incurred in England. The Sta…
-
J.D. v. State, 693 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…estimates relied upon to support the restitution amount were improperly based entirely on inadmissable hearsay evidence and the defendant properly objected to its admission. See J.L. v. State, 684 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Louis v. State, 654 So. 2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Branker v. State, 650 So. 2d 195, 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Boyle v. State, 589 So. 2d 1015, 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Accordingly, we remand this cause for a new restitution hearing consistent with this opinion.…
-
J.L. v. State, 684 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…te’s proper confession of error as to the amount attributable to the two rings and the VCR, we reverse, as their value was established only through hearsay testimony, and the defendant objected to the admission of that testimony. See Louis v. State, 654 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (hearsay testimony of value of items stolen cannot by itself support restitution order). However, the value of the remainder of the items that were stolen, and the property damaged, was properly established by the victim’s testi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thomas v. State, 581 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Delks v. State, 622 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- House v. State, 614 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)