Background
Brandon Davaria Hudson appealed his conviction and sentence for armed robbery with a firearm. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction without discussion.
Hudson also challenged an order requiring him to pay $29,000 in restitution. The victim had testified that the robbery involved a Rolex watch, a chain, and a wallet containing approximately $500, but the State presented no evidence at trial or sentencing establishing the value of the watch or chain or otherwise supporting the total restitution amount.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the $29,000 restitution award was not supported by competent evidence. Under section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2023), the State bears the burden of proving the victim’s amount of loss, and the amount cannot rest on speculation.
Because the State offered no evidence supporting the ordered amount, the court reversed the restitution portion of Hudson’s sentence and remanded for a new restitution hearing. It otherwise affirmed Hudson’s conviction.
Key Takeaways
- The State must establish the amount of restitution through competent evidence rather than speculation.
- Testimony identifying stolen property, without evidence of its value, did not support a $29,000 restitution award.
- The court affirmed Hudson’s armed-robbery conviction but ordered a new restitution hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Florida’s mandatory-restitution framework does not relieve the State of its evidentiary burden. A sentencing court must have competent evidence of the victim’s actual loss before fixing the amount of restitution.
For criminal practitioners, the opinion highlights the need to develop and challenge valuation evidence at restitution proceedings, particularly when stolen items have substantial claimed value.