ANN MARIE WETHERINGTON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed restitution order for graffiti damage, holding that restitution must be limited to the actual loss caused by the defendant's conduct and cannot include costs to repaint entire walls when only portions were damaged and walls were already in need of repair.
Restitution for graffiti damage must be limited to the actual loss caused by the defendant's conduct and cannot require full repainting of walls when only portions were damaged and the walls were already in need of repair before the offense.
[1] Restitution for property damage must be apportioned to reflect only the loss caused by the defendant's conduct, excluding costs attributable to the property's pre-existin…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the ordered restitution would be the "amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense." Section 775.089(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1995).”
Court explaining the statutory requirement for restitution to be limited to actual loss caused by the offense
Appellant painted graffiti on a small portion of a shopping center's rear building wall and perimeter screening wall. The trial court ordered $8,800 i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Victim Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in the amount of restitution ordered to cure the effect of graffiti on a shopping center rear building wall and on the perimeter screening wall.
The graffiti covered only a small portion of each wall but the court ordered restitution in the amount of $8,800 in order to paint both walls “corner to comer” in order to avoid “a very thin line” between the new paint and the old. The cost of repainting only the areas where appellant painted the graffiti would be considerably less.
We would agree with the trial court that requiring repainting of the entire walls— comer to comer — would be appropriate if the walls, before appellant’s action, had been in good repair. However, the evidence in this case reflects that other graffiti appeared on the walls and previous partial repainting of the walls was evident. If the walls were in need of painting even before appellant’s action, a proper apportionment of the costs should be allocated as restitution so that the ordered restitution would be the “amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense.” Section 775.089(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1995). (Emphasis added).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.