Mastrantoni v. State, 722 So. 2d 251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Cases | Mastrantoni v. State, 722 So. 2d 251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) | 2018

The defendant pled to a number of counts arising from his involvement in a car theft and was sentenced to probation and restitution. On appeal, the defendant argued, in part, that the court erred in imposing sums of restitution for certain items the victim reported as stolen with the car, such as golf clubs, a camcorder and accessories; loss on the pending sale of the car; and psychiatric care for the victims’ 24 year old, uninsured, Down’s syndrome son who allegedly suffered medically as a result of witnessing the theft. The court of appeals affirmed the restitution order for some items “because no timely objection was made to the hearsay nature of the testimony.” The court struck down the order of restitution for the loss of the pending sale of the automobile because it was too speculative, and restitution for psychiatric care for the victims’ son because he was not a victim under the restitution statute. The orders of restitution were affirmed in part and reversed in part.