Court Affirms $11,911.00 Restitution Award Against Contractor

Dacosta v. State arises from a conviction for unlawful contracting where a contractor failed to complete work under a home renovation contract, in violation of § 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Following trial, the homeowner was awarded $11,911.00 in restitution, which the contractor subsequently appealed. On appeal, the contractor argued that the restitution amount was determined based on inadmissible hearsay and that the restitution award included sums unrelated to the offense.

Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal rejected these arguments and affirmed the award of restitution. The contractor’s hearsay argument primarily focused on the fact that the homeowner’s evidence of amounts paid to other contractors to complete and repair the deficient work were check stubs, rather than the actual checks themselves. While the State conceded on appeal that the contractor’s argument was correct, the Sixth DCA noted that the statute and case law relied on by the State in its concession were outdated, and that under the current version of § 775.089(7), Florida Statutes, hearsay evidence is allowed to be used in restitution hearings if the hearsay evidence has a “minimal indicia of reliability.” The appellate court continued, noting that the trial court found this minimal indicia of reliability when it overruled the hearsay objection raised at trial.

As to the second argument raised by the contractor, the Sixth DCA noted that nothing in the record made clear that the check stubs pointed to by the contractor as being unrelated to the charged offense were (1) unrelated, or (2) part of the restitution award. Accordingly, the appellate court found that the contractor had failed to demonstrate the existence of a clear error on the part of the trial court. Accordingly, the final award against the contractor remained in place.