We affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence for grand theft without discussion. However, appellant correctly asserts, and the state properly concedes, the trial court erred in ordering restitution based on speculation, non-admitted business records, and hearsay evidence admitted at the restitution hearing over appellant’s objection. See V.B. v. State, 75 So.3d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Dreyer v. State, 46 So.3d 613, 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Ritch v. State, 14 So.3d 1104, 1107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Butler v. State, 970 So.2d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Forlano v. State, 964 So.2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); I.M. v. State, 958 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Herrington v. State, 823 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s restitution determination and remand for a new restitution hearing. V.B., 75 So.3d at 363; Dreyer, 46 So.3d at 615; Forlano, 964 So.2d at 246; Herrington, 823 So.2d at 286-87.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED for further proceedings.