Tanksley v. State
The First DCA vacated a restitution order for grand theft because the State failed to establish the loss amount through competent evidence, relying instead on an unauthenticated internal store report presented by a witness lacking personal knowledge of how it was prepared. The court also held that no party made the required statutory showing for why a measure other than fair market value should apply under section 775.089(7)(b).
Key facts
- Tanksley was convicted of grand theft; the trial court imposed a restitution order based on loss amount established through an unauthenticated internal store investigative report presented by a witness without personal knowledge of the report's preparation or reliability.
- The State sought to establish the loss amount using the store's internal report and alleged admissions contained therein, but did not present evidence of fair market value or make any statutory showing for an alternative measure of restitution.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision reinforces that restitution amounts must rest on properly authenticated evidence and reiterates the statutory default toward fair market value absent an affirmative showing otherwise. Practitioners… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
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.