JAVON GRAHAM, 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.
The award of lost wages as restitution was improper because the state failed to submit competent evidence to support the victim's claim.
The defendant was convicted of armed robbery and grand theft, and the trial court ordered restitution including $500 for the victim's lost wages. The …
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 Restitution Award cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Javon Graham was convicted of committing an armed robbery with a firearm1 and grand theft.2 The trial court entered a restitution order in the amount of $640. This amount represented $140 in actual damages sustained by the victim and $500 in lost wages to the victim. On appeal, Mr. Graham asserts that the award of lost wages was improper because the state failed to submit competent evidence regarding the victim’s claim for lost wages. We agree.
Lost wages may provide a basis for a restitution award. See § 775.089(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). However, if the amount of the award is objected to, a defendant is entitled to receive a hearing to establish the amount by competent evidence. See Vanlieu v. State, 630 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Furthermore, when disputed, the state has the burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by the victim. See § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (1995); see also Lunsford v. State, 637 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
Here, during the sentencing hearing, defense counsel agreed that $140 was the amount of actual damages sustained by the victim, but objected to the $500 claimed by the victim for lost wages. No documentation or evidence was presented by the state to support the claim for lost wages. Accordingly, we affirm Mr. Graham’s convictions and sentences but must vacate the portion of the restitution award relating to lost wages. We remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings which may include a hearing to determine the amount of the victim’s lost wages. AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and cause REMANDED.
COBB, PETERSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . § 812.13, Fla. Stat. (1995).
. § 812.014, Fla. Stat. (1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Koile v. State, 902 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…ion and significant relationship tests work in conjunction with, and not independently of, each other. Id. In this connection this Court has previously held that lost wages may provide a sufficient basis for a restitution award. See Graham v. State, 720 So. 2d 294, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); see also Hollingsworth v. State, 835 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). IV. Lost wages for next of kin for attendance at trial. Consider, first, whether the statute permits an award of lost wages to the parents of the decede…
-
Hollingsworth v. State, 835 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…n the instant case, there is evidence that the victim’s mother lost wages as a result of being unable to go to work because of the emotional turmoil caused by Appellant’s offense. Lost wages may be the basis for a restitution award. Graham v. State, 720 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); § 775.089(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). Thus, the victim’s mother is entitled to restitution under the applicable version of section 775.089, Florida Statutes, and competent substantial evidence supports such award. AFFIRMED. DAVIS a…
Authorities Cited
- Vanlieu v. State, 630 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Lunsford v. State, 637 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)