TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Anderson v. State

Anderson v. State, 649 So. 2d 890 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 25, 1995
Docket
No. 93-01305
Judges
Frank
Citations
649 So. 2d 8901995 WL 25329

Opinion

649 So.2d 890 (1995)

Michael ANDERSON, Appellant,

v.

STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 93-01305.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 25, 1995.

Walter L. Grantham, Jr., Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Ron Napolitano, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

FRANK, Chief Judge.

Following pleas of guilty to dealing in stolen property, burglary, and grand theft, Michael Anderson was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $20,000.00 following a hearing. Anderson contends on appeal that the court's method for determining the value of the stolen items was erroneous.

At the hearing the victim, in response to questioning from Anderson's attorney, testified concerning his estimate of the value of the stolen items. Anderson argues that the judge should have rejected any figure other than the fair market value of the property, but considerations other than fair market valuable are permissible in determining restitution. The judge acted within his discretion in accepting the victim's valuation. State v. Hawthorne, 573 So.2d 330 (Fla. 1991). Even if this were not the case, Anderson has waived this issue by failing to object at the trial level to either the method for determining the restitution or the approximate valuation of the items stolen. Moore v. State, 623 So.2d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Primm v. State, 614 So.2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

Anderson did object, however, to payment of restitution for items he allegedly did not steal. The trial judge agreed that the value of a shotgun and a Colt .45 should have been deleted from the $20,000.00 total, but the written order fails to conform to that pronouncement. Accordingly, we affirm in part the order under review, but reverse that portion pertaining to the shotgun and the Colt .45, and remand for correction of the restitution total.

THREADGILL and FULMER, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1995: 41996: 11997: 11998: 32005: 119952026peak 1995 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Tampa Letter Carriers, Inc. v. MacK649 So. 2d 890 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
  2. A.G. v. State718 So. 2d 854 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
  3. Bakos v. State698 So. 2d 943 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
  4. Yaun v. State898 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
  5. Cyrus v. State712 So. 2d 811 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
  6. AG v. State718 So. 2d 854 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Most recent

  1. Yaun v. State898 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
  2. AG v. State718 So. 2d 854 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
  3. A.G. v. State718 So. 2d 854 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
  4. Cyrus v. State712 So. 2d 811 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
  5. Bakos v. State698 So. 2d 943 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
  6. K.D.B. v. State673 So. 2d 199 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1991) 117
Tampa Letter Carriers, Inc. v. MacK, 649 So. 2d 890 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995) 14
Moore v. State, 623 So. 2d 842 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) 8
Primm v. State, 614 So. 2d 658 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list