☢ test - Í

(Emphasis supplied.) Thus, he had already admitted to the court that he had converted $16,874 to his own use.” The amount stolen in Count Two was similarly admitted. Use of funds. “Hartsell’s contention that he could only be ordered to recompense the victims for those funds he used for his personal expenses lacks foundation in the law. OCGA § 16-8- 4(a) defines the offense of conversion as a person’s knowingly converting the funds ‘to his own use in violation of the agreement.’ ‘ His own use’ does not refer exclusively to using the funds for unapproved personal expenses; rather, it refers to using the funds for a chosen use other than the purpose specified in the agreement. See Cox v. State, 275 Ga.App. 895 (622 S.E.2d 11) (2005). Indeed, Connally v. State, 265 Ga. 563, 564(2) (458 S.E.2d 336) (1995), held that using a portion of the funds received from the victim to pay unapproved expenses of a business partnership in which the defendant was involved met the definition of using the funds for the defendant’s own use. Cf. McMahon v. State, 258 Ga.App. 512, 515(1) (574 S.E.2d 548) (2002) (defendant liable for criminal acts carried out as an officer of the corporation he controlled).” 4. CALCULATION OF AMOUNT – PERSONAL PROPERTY Galimore v. State, 321 Ga.App. 886, 743 S.E.2d 545 (May 22, 2013). Following guilty plea to burglary, trial court’s award of victim restitution upheld, though erroneous in one respect. 1. Evidence sufficient: victim, “an IT professional who frequently dealt in buying and selling of computer equipment, … described the various computers and the server with particularity and explained that he had researched market values on eBay. Although during cross-examination the victim sometimes referred to replacement costs in explaining how he arrived at his valuations, the trial court could conclude that, other than the laptop, the victim testified to the fair market value of the computer-related equipment and not simply the cost of purchasing a new replacement.” Fact that defendant formed opinions based on prices on eBay is not problematic, citing “ Barnes v. State, 239 Ga.App. 495, 498(1), 521 S.E.2d 425 (1999) (it is ‘not objectionable that [the owner's] opinion as to value might, in some cases, be based on hearsay’) (citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted).” 2. Evidence insufficient: defendant’s opinion of value of stolen hand tools and jar of coins was insufficient, given that he didn’t know what tools were stolen or how many of what type of coins were in the jar. Victim acknowledged that he was “guessing” as to both items. “See generally Jaraysi v. Sebastian, 318 Ga.App. 469, 477(2), 733 S.E.2d 785 (2012) (‘damages cannot be established by speculation, conjecture and guesswork’) (punctuation and footnote omitted).” Total restitution award affirmed, however, because the total was supported by the items for which victim expressed a valid opinion. In re. R.H., 316 Ga.App. 317, 728 S.E.2d 911 (June 20, 2012). Physical precedent only. In delinquency case, restitution order reversed and remanded for lack of evidence to support amount. Trial court couldn’t estimate current value based on owner’s testimony as to purchase price four months earlier. Stolen property here consisted of a Nook e-reader, case, memory card, earphones, and e-books . “OCGA § 17–14–9 does not permit a trial judge to set the amount of restitution by approximation but requires that the amount be based on proper opinion evidence of fair market value. Lovell v. State, 189 Ga.App. 311, 313(3) (375 S.E.2d 658) (1988).” Implores legislature to enact a legislative fix. Johnson v. State, 314 Ga.App. 560, 724 S.E.2d 859 (March 2, 2012). Burglary and related convictions affirmed, but victim restitution not supported by evidence. Restitution here was “for the value of stolen personal property and damage to the house. … The measure of damages is the fair market value of the stolen personal property and the cost of repairs to the house. In re: E.W., 290 Ga.App. 95, 97–98 (658 S.E.2d 854) (2008). As to the stolen personal property, the State failed to produce evidence of fair market value at the restitution hearing; instead showing what the victim paid for the property when it was new or what the victim would have to pay for new replacement property. Hawthorne v. State, 285 Ga.App. 196, 197 (648 S.E.2d 387) (2007). As to the cost of repairing the house, the State produced only inadmissible hearsay — testimony from the victim as to repair estimates she received from third parties not available to be cross- examined. Id. Accordingly, the order of restitution to the victim in the amount of $5,000.00 is vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new hearing on restitution.” Accord, Austin v. State , 315 Ga.App. 713, 727 S.E.2d 535 (April 27, 2012) (restitution award for collectible pistol and coin collection reversed; estimate of replacement value insufficient to establish fair market value). Browning v. State, 303 Ga.App. 805, 695 S.E.2d 291 (April 22, 2010). Trial court’s restitution order reversed and remanded; insufficient evidence supported finding of value of stolen vehicle. Insurance company employee testified that company determined value of car by “the NADA value of the vehicle, based on the vehicle identification number. [fn] When asked whether she had knowledge of the condition of the vehicle, the witness testified that she had photographs of the vehicle taken by the estimator after the vehicle was recovered, but these photographs were not introduced into evidence and the witness did not give any opinion about the condition of the vehicle based on her review of the photographs. The witness further testified that she was not involved in the valuation of this particular vehicle, but that