# Theodorou v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · October 2, 2009 · 53 So. 3d 150

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4862297

## Case

- **Full name:** Jerome Theodorou v. State of Alabama.
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** October 2, 2009
- **Citations:** 53 So. 3d 150; 2009 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 118; 2009 WL 3170749
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wise
- **Judges:** Windom, Kellum, Main, Wise, Welch
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4862297

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4862297. Public record. Not legal advice.