Opinion

Theodorou v. State

  • 53 So. 3d 150
  • 2009 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 118
  • 2009 WL 3170749
Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
Filed
Oct 2, 2009
Status
Published
Author
Wise
On the bench
Windom, Kellum, Main, Wise, Welch
Cited by
1 cases

The opinion

WISE, Presiding Judge,

dissenting.

I believe the trial court erred in its calculation of the amount of restitution due from Theodorou. For example, the court awarded $6,616.58 in lost revenue for the days when the business could not operate without the equipment. Also, it appears that the court awarded $4,572.50 for some type of payments the business had previously made on the equipment. The case-law regarding the amount of restitution a victim may recover as a result of a defendant’s criminal acts is ambiguous, and the application of that law is particularly difficult in cases involving receiving stolen property. Therefore, I urge the Alabama Supreme Court to clarify the easelaw governing restitution. Nevertheless, I do not believe that all of the losses Bussman Construction Company suffered were attributable to Theodorou’s criminal act of receiving the stolen property. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

WELCH, J., concurs.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.