SAUNI MONICA BONNER, 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 a restitution order of $430 because the trial court relied solely on hearsay evidence regarding the amount of damages, despite a timely objection, and remanded for a new hearing where the State must present admissible evidence of the loss.
A restitution order based solely on hearsay evidence to which a proper objection was raised must be reversed and remanded for a new hearing where the State presents admissible evidence of damages.
[1] A restitution order based solely on hearsay evidence, when a timely objection is raised, must be reversed and remanded; on remand, the State must prove the amount of loss…
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 State may prove the total amount of the loss by a preponderance of the evidence "by presenting testimony of a witness with knowledge of the amount of damage and repairs, or by presenting uncontested documentary evidence."”
The court explained the proper method for establishing restitution amounts on remand.
Sauni Monica Bonner was convicted of trespass and criminal mischief. At the restitution hearing, the trial court ordered her to pay $430 based on a vi…
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 Evidentiary Objections cases and more on FLexlaw
WALLACE, Judge.
Sauni Monica Bonner appeals the restitution order requiring her to pay $430 for damages resulting from her crimes of trespass and criminal mischief. At the restitution hearing, defense counsel timely objected to hearsay reported by the victim that “a fellow” estimated $430 to be the amount of damage to the victim’s rental property. The trial court was aware that it based its ruling solely on hearsay evidence, but it believed the result to be advantageous to Bonner because the estimate did not include all the damages to which the victim was entitled.
Because a proper objection was raised to hearsay that was the sole evidence of the amount of restitution, we reverse and remand for a new restitution hearing. See Williams v. State, 850 So. 2d 627, 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Korica v. State, 791 So. 2d 543, 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Moore v. State, 694 So. 2d 836, 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). On remand, the State may prove the total amount of the loss by a preponderance of the evidence “by presenting testimony of a witness with knowledge of the amount of damage and repairs, or by presenting uncontested documentary evi dence.” Williams, 850 So. 2d at 628 (quoting C.S. v. State, 617 So. 2d 863, 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)).
Because we reverse on this ground, we need not address the other issue presented in this appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
FULMER and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
I.M. v. State, 958 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…ey satisfy the requirements of business records under section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes (2005), or are uncontested. See, e.g., B.L.N. v. State, 722 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); C.S. v. State, 617 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Bonner v. State, 899 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Davis v. State, 707 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Also at the hearing below, the court deferred monthly payment of restitution until the child finishes school or turns 18. The court properly overruled LM.’s objection that rest…
-
Schenk v. State, 150 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…dmissibility of the written estimate. Because the written estimate was inadmissible hearsay evidence, we hold that the trial court erred in admitting the estimate and basing the value of the exterior door solely on this evidence.”); Bonner v. State, 899 So. 2d 1212, 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“Because a proper objection was raised to hearsay that was the sole evidence of the amount of restitution, we reverse and remand for a new restitution hearing.”). The Fourth District Court of Appeal recently reversed a rest…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 850 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Moore v. State, 694 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Korica v. State, 791 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- C.S. v. State, 617 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)