Show Me the Contract: Challenging Inflated Restitution in Florida Criminal Cases

You've already pleaded guilty or been convicted. Now the State wants you to pay the victim back. The victim takes the stand and says, "They owe me $50,000." No receipts. No invoices. No contracts. Just their word. Can a judge order you to pay based on that alone? According to a recent Florida appellate ruling, the answer is no.

The Case: Pope v. State (2025)

In Pope v. State, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2556a (Fla. 4th DCA 2025), the defendant was convicted in a contracting fraud case. At sentencing, the victim testified about the amounts she claimed she was owed under their contract.

There was just one problem: the actual contract was never entered into evidence. No invoices. No payment records. No bank statements. Just the victim's testimony about what she remembered the amounts to be.

The Restitution Standard: "Substantial Competent Evidence"

Florida Statute 775.089 governs restitution in criminal cases. The statute places the burden squarely on the State.

The statute allows hearsay evidence - but only if it has "minimal indicia of reliability." In practice, courts have interpreted this to require substantial competent evidence. D.D. v. State, 172 So. 3d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

What does this mean in practice? Florida courts have made clear:

• No speculation allowed - "The amount of restitution must be based on more than speculation." Ritch v. State, 14 So. 3d 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
• State bears the burden - The State must prove the loss amount, not the defendant disprove it
• Preponderance standard - More likely than not (51%), but still requires actual evidence

The Critical Distinction: Fair Market Value vs. Contract Claims

Here's where many prosecutors get it wrong. An owner can testify about the fair market value of their property - what their car was worth, what their jewelry would sell for. That's based on personal knowledge of the item.

But contract claims are different. When a victim says "they owed me $50,000 under our agreement," they're not estimating market value. They're making a legal claim about a contractual obligation. That requires proof of:

• What the contract actually said
• What work was performed
• What payments were made
• What remains owed under the terms

Without the underlying documents, the victim is essentially asking the court to take their word for a complex legal calculation. That's speculation, not evidence.

How to Challenge Restitution at Sentencing

If you're facing a restitution hearing, here's what experienced defense attorneys do:

1. Demand Documentation

Before the hearing, request that the State provide:

• Contracts - The actual agreement
• Invoices - Itemized bills
• Receipts - Proof of payment
• Bank records - Transaction history
• Repair estimates - From licensed professionals

2. Challenge Speculative Amounts

Under Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1997), restitution cannot be based on speculation. Challenge amounts that are:

• Round numbers without itemization
• "Estimates" without professional basis
• Claims that changed significantly over time
• Amounts inconsistent with other evidence

3. Request a Restitution Hearing

You have the right to a separate hearing on restitution. Don't let the State tack on a number at the sentencing hearing without proper evidentiary foundation.

Where This Defense Applies

Restitution challenges are most effective in cases involving:

Why Restitution Defense Matters

Restitution isn't just about money - it can affect your entire sentence. In Florida:

• Probation conditions - Failure to pay can result in violation
• Ability to seal/expunge - Outstanding restitution can block record clearing
• Credit impact - Restitution can become a civil judgment
• Collection - The State can garnish wages and seize assets

An inflated restitution order follows you for years. Fighting for an accurate amount at sentencing protects your future.

Jeff Lotter

Criminal Defense Attorney | Former State Trooper

Jeff Lotter is an Orlando criminal defense attorney and former Florida Highway Patrol trooper. He uses his law enforcement background to build stronger defenses for clients facing criminal charges.