State of Florida v. Tara Jeanine Tanksley

Pensacola, Florida criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant ordered to pay restitution.



Defendant pleaded no contest to grand theft of $10,000 or more but less than $20,000, a third-degree felony under section

812.014(2)(c)3., Florida Statutes, for using her position as a department store employee to assist in the appropriation of multiple items of clothing and gift cards from the store. At the restitution hearing, a department store asset protection employee testified concerning an internal case report that the department store generated in its investigation of Appellant. This witness only testified as to what the report was. She did not offer any testimony as to how the report was prepared, who prepared it, or why it was reliable. She also was not the person who conducted the store's interview with Defendant during its internal investigation. Thus, the report itself was not capable, on its face, of proving any loss amount.



* * *



"The statutory provisions requiring the imposition of restitution recognize the discretion of the trial court in determining the amount of restitution." Spivey v. State, 531 So.2d 965, 966 (Fla. 1988). Section 775.089(6)(a), Florida Statutes, provides: "The court, in determining whether to order restitution and the amount of such restitution, shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense." Section 775.089(6)(b) provides: "The criminal court, at the time of enforcement of the restitution order, shall consider the financial resources of the defendant, the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his or her dependents, and such other factors which it deems appropriate." (emphasis added). "The purpose of restitution is not only to compensate the victim, but also to serve the rehabilitative, deterrent, and retributive goals of the criminal justice system. The trial court is best able to determine how imposing restitution may best serve those goals in each case." Spivey, 531 at 967 (citation omitted). Thus, "a court is not tied to fair market value as the sole standard for determining restitution amounts, but rather may exercise such discretion as required to further the purposes of restitution." State v. Hawthorne, 573 So.2d 330, 333 (Fla. 1991). However, "[w]here it is determined that a restitution amount equal to fair market value adequately compensates the victim or otherwise serves the purposes of restitution, . . . the value should be established either through direct testimony or through evidence of the four factors" of "(1) original market cost; (2) manner in which the item was used; (3) the general condition and quality of the item; and (4) the percentage of depreciation." Id. at 332-33.



* * *

MoreLaw

was created to help people find the right lawyers to represent them based on the performance history of trial lawyers in every county of the United States. Click the link above to see a list of the lawyers that MoreLaw has identified who practice law where this case was litigated.

Reversed and remanded.