GROVER EVANS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Grover Evans was convicted of second-degree grand theft for stealing coats from a Sears store. The appellate court vacated his conviction because the state failed to prove that the three coats found in his possession exceeded $100 in value, which is an essential element of grand theft.
The court held that while the evidence was sufficient to establish that Evans committed theft, the state failed to prove that the value of the three coats in his possession exceeded $100 as required for grand theft. Therefore, his grand theft conviction was vacated and he was adjudicated guilty of petit theft instead.
[1] An issue is properly preserved for appellate review if it was raised in a motion for judgment of acquittal and argued in a motion for new trial.
[2] Proof of the value of stolen property exceeding the statutory threshold is an essential element of grand theft that must be established by the state beyond a reasonable d…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Proof of the element of value is essential to a conviction for grand theft and must be established by the state beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.”
Establishes the legal standard that value must be proven as an essential element of grand theft beyond reasonable doubt.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEvans was found in possession of three stolen coats several hours after a theft at a Sears store in Clearwater on February 7 or 8, 1983. The Sears sto…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Proof Of Value Of Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Defendant, Grover Evans, challenges his conviction for second-degree grand theft under section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1981). The only meritorious point he raises is that the state failed to prove that the value of the stolen coats found in his possession was in excess of $100. Thus, defendant argues that there was no basis for a conviction of grand theft. On this point, we agree.
At the outset we reject the state’s contention that defendant has not properly preserved this issue for appeal. The record discloses that defendant raised an objection as to proof of value in his motion for judgment of acquittal and argued the point in his motion for new trial. Thus, the issue has been properly preserved for our review. See Mancini v. State, 273 So. 2d 371 (Fla.1973); Santini v. State, 404 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
The state charged Evans with theft of coats of the value of $100 or more from a Sears store in Clearwater on February 7 or 8, 1983. Defendant pled not guilty and was tried and found guilty as charged by a jury. The evidence revealed that several hours after the theft, when defendant’s car was stopped by the police, he was found to be in possession of three of the stolen coats. The proof established his knowledge of the stolen character of the coats. While we reject the defendant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of theft, we nevertheless hold that the state failed to prove that the value of the coats found in his possession exceeded $100, as required for a conviction of second-degree grand theft. At defendant’s trial the manager of the Sears store identified the three coats found in defendant’s possession as being from the group of some twenty-three or twenty-four coats that were stolen. The manager further testified that those coats represented a total of $1,100 in retail value to Sears at the time they were stolen. He did not testify as to specific values and no price tags from the recovered coats were admitted in evidence.
Proof of the element of value is essential to a conviction for grand theft and must be established by the state beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1974); Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Admittedly, an inference could be drawn from the evidence that each coat was worth about $50 or $55. However, we point out that no evidence was introduced as to the value of the three coats found in defendant’s possession. The fact is that the coats stolen from Sears consisted of a variety of “styles of all-weather coats, long and short.” This could support a contrary inference that the coats sold for a wide range of prices; some expensive, others less expensive. Finally, this is not one of those rare cases where the minimum value of an item of property is so obvious as to defy contradiction. See Jackson v. State, 413 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
Accordingly, we vacate defendant’s judgment and sentence for grand theft and direct the trial court to adjudicate him guilty of petit theft and to resentence him accordingly.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and OTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
I.T. v. State, 796 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ent to establish value at time of theft); In the Interest of F.R., 539 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(insufficient to establish market value at time of theft where owner estimated value at “about 300 [dollars], something like that”); Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)(Sears manager failed to establish market value of stolen coats; only testified as to Sears’ retail value, but did not state specific values or introduce price tags); Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)(owner f…
-
Cofield v. State, 474 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…f the value of the goods. It is well-settled that proof of the element of value is essential to a conviction for grand theft and must be established by the state beyond a reasonable doubt. Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1974); Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Weatherspoon v. State 419 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Section 812.-012(9)(a)(l), Florida Statutes, states:' “Value means the market value of the property at the time and place of the offense or, if such cannot be satisfactoril…
-
Toler v. State, 779 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…y stolen be $300 or more. See § 812.014(2)(e), Fla.Stat. (1997). “Proof of the element of value is essential to a conviction for grand theft and must be established by the state beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.” Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 1040, 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). In this case, the owner’s use of the term “roughly” indicates,that she was estimating the value of the property at around $300. The inference from this testimony was that the television could be valued at slightly more or l…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ozzie Joseph Negron and Teresa Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1974)
- Mancini v. State, 273 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1973)
- Stonewall Jackson v. State, 413 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Santini v. State, 404 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)