Graham v. State, 779 So. 2d 370 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Cases | Graham v. State, 779 So. 2d 370 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) | 2018

The defendant pled guilty to several charges, including two counts of grand theft and one count of obtaining property by a worthless check. On appeal, the defendant challenged two restitution orders. For the first order of restitution, the court of appeals held that the defendant was liable for restitution to her victim even though there was no mention of restitution in her plea agreement. The court held that the trial court did err in imposing an order of restitution in the second instance because “[i]t is clear from the transcript of the hearing that the victim did not want restitution” and because “the State did not meet its burden of proving the amount of the victim’s loss.” The court affirmed in part and reversed in part.