Can Repair Costs Be Used to Prove Damages in a Florida Criminal Mischief Case?

August 28, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

In Florida, criminal mischief is a very serious offense. It occurs when someone willfully and maliciously damages the property of another person without their consent. Depending on the value of that damage, criminal mischief can either be considered a misdemeanor or a felony.

In some cases, repair costs may be used to calculate the damage to someone’s property for purposes of supporting a criminal mischief charge. But does Florida law view this as a valid method to determine damages for purposes of determining whether criminal mischief is a misdemeanor or felony?

The answer is sometimes, but this is heavily fact-dependent. This blog will explore the elements and penalties of criminal mischief, and answer the key question of when repair costs can be used to determine the value of damaged property for purposes of proving criminal mischief.

For someone to be guilty of criminal mischief, the State must prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant willfully (intentionally) and maliciously (wrongfully, intentionally, and without lawful justification) damaged or injured real or personal property
• The property belonged to another (the defendant was not the owner)
• There is actual damage to the property

Note: There is a debate among Florida’s courts as to whether criminal mischief is a specific or general intent crime. The 1st and 3rd DCAs hold that a defendant does not have to willfully and maliciously commit an act specifically aimed to damage property – committing an act with the knowledge that damage will or may be caused is sufficient. M.H. v. State, 936 So. 2d 1, 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); J.R.S. v. State, 569 So. 2d 1323, 1325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

By contrast, the 2nd, 4th and 5th DCAs hold that criminal mischief requires that the damage to the property itself have intentionally been caused, not simply that the defendant committed an act they knew would or may damage the property. The property must be the intended target. Stinnett v. State, 935 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Sanchez v. State, 909 So. 2d 981, 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); In the Interest of J.G., 655 So. 2d 1284, 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)

Depending on the value of the damage inflicted by the criminal mischief to the property of another, charges may range from a second-degree misdemeanor to a third-degree felony. Fla. Stat. 806.13 provides:

• If the damage is less than $200, criminal mischief is a second-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine
• If the damage is between $200 and $1,000, criminal mischief is a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine
• If the damage is above $1,000, criminal mischief is a third-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine
• If the damage is to a historical monument or religious facilities (church, synagogue, etc.), criminal mischief is a third-degree felony (if the damage is over $200)
• If the damage is to utilities (such as a public telephone, telephone pole, cables, wires, etc.) and it is rendered inoperable (even temporarily), criminal mischief is a third-degree felony 

It is critical to understand that in a Florida criminal mischief case, there is no “life experience” exception that allows a jury to legally infer that the damage caused was over or under a particular amount of money. The State must supply proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the damage to the property aligns with the severity of the charge. Marrero v. State, 71 So.3d 881 (Fla. 2011)

Under Marrero, if the jury finds someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of a criminal mischief charge but does not find that the State proved the damage amount alleged, the charge is to be reduced to second-degree misdemeanor (the lowest level of criminal mischief). Marrero at 885.

Determining whether repair costs may be used to calculate the value of the damage to property in a criminal mischief case is important, as this is done quite often. However, courts have ruled that under certain circumstances, repair costs alone cannot be used if the fair market value of the item is lower than the repair costs. R.C.R. v. State, 916 So.2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)

In R.C.R., a victim’s truck was damaged days after the victim had purchased the truck for $500. The victim estimated the damage repair to the truck to be $2,700 ($900 in parts plus labor costs of employees). R.C.R. (a juvenile) was convicted of felony criminal mischief based on this estimate and appealed.

The court ruled in his favor. It found that “the amount of damage element may not be proved by what it may ultimately take to make the victim whole, but by the value of what was lost.” This means repair costs cannot be used to calculate damages if the repair costs were greater than the fair market value (how much the property was worth at the time) of the damaged property.

R.C.R. noted that Florida’s courts generally calculate fair market value using the following factors:

• Original market cost
• Manner in which the item was used
• General condition and quality of the item
• Percentage of depreciation

Because the truck had been purchased for just $500 days prior, the court noted that its fair market value was under $1,000 – and far under the $2,700 in alleged damages. Thus, R.C.R’s conviction of felony criminal mischief was reversed.

Two years later, the 4th DCA applied this principle again in L.D.G. v. State, 960 So.2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). There, a juvenile damaged a counselor’s van during a temper tantrum, denting it several times. The van’s repair cost was $1,250, which the victim paid to the repairing company in cash.

L.D.G. was convicted of felony criminal mischief. On appeal, L.D.G. analogized the case to R.C.R., arguing repair costs could not be used as a damage estimate. But the court disagreed, finding that because the fair market value of the van far exceeded the damage amount, repair costs could be used to determine damages.

R.C.R. also makes clear that if someone decides to replace rather than repair the item, this cannot be used to inflate the damage assessment in a criminal mischief case. Davis v. State reiterated this, holding that the damage value cannot be inflated beyond the fair market value of the original property. Davis v. State, 244 So.3d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)

Examples of this principle in action are:

• D smashes L’s $600 laptop. L pays $1,100 for a new laptop. The cost of the new laptop cannot be used to say the damage was $1,100 (third-degree felony) rather than $600 (first-degree misdemeanor).
• D breaks L’s $150 bicycle. L buys a $900 carbon-fiber racing bike as a replacement. The State can’t use the $900 price to push the charge into the $200-$1,000 range (first-degree misdemeanor), as the fair market value is $150, making it a second-degree misdemeanor.
• D vandalizes L’s $800 television. L replaces it with a $2,200 high-end model. The $2,200 cost can’t be used to classify the damage as over $1,000 for a third-degree felony.
• D scratches L’s new junk car that he purchased for $600. L goes to the town’s most expensive auto shop, and they charge him $1,200 for repairs. This $1,200 cannot be used to support a felony criminal mischief charge (fair market value is <$1,000).

In sum, repair costs can be used to assess damages for purposes of determining the severity of a criminal mischief charge. However, this is subject to two key limitations.

Repair costs may not be used as a matter of law to inflate the damage to property beyond its fair market value (R.C.R.). Moreover, someone may not replace the item with a more expensive version (such as a $2,000 TV replacing a $600 TV), then use the value of the replacement item to increase criminal mischief charges. 

In a criminal mischief case, the State must prove the value of the damage beyond a reasonable doubt for someone to be convicted. If the jury finds the crime occurred (damage was willfully and maliciously caused to another’s property) but the State has not established the value of the damage, someone may only be convicted of second-degree misdemeanor criminal mischief.  Marrero v. State, 71 So.3d 881 (Fla. 2011)

This principle makes it especially critical to challenge the value of the alleged damage in a criminal mischief case. If successful, this can significantly reduce the severity of the charges, even if “willful and malicious damage” clearly occurred.

In a criminal mischief case, it is vital to have the best representation possible, as this charge can carry heavy criminal and financial penalties. Don Pumphrey Jr. and the attorneys at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting to win for clients across the state of Florida.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share