Dacosta v. State
The Sixth District affirmed a restitution order after rejecting both the appellant's hearsay challenge to check stubs used to calculate the amount and his claim that unrelated sums were improperly included. The court held that the 2021 amendment to section 775.089(7)(c) now expressly permits hearsay evidence at restitution hearings if the court finds minimal indicia of reliability, superseding older case law like Bianchini v. State that barred hearsay-based restitution determinations.
Key facts
- Appellant challenged a restitution order imposed after conviction, arguing that check stubs used to calculate restitution amounts constituted inadmissible hearsay and that unrelated sums were improperly included in the total award.
- The trial court found the check stubs had minimal indicia of reliability and included them in calculating the restitution amount; appellant did not challenge the reliability finding on appeal.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion is useful to practitioners handling restitution disputes because it affirmatively confirms that the 2021 statutory amendment overrides prior Fourth District precedent (Bianchini) that treated hearsay as… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.