STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL PHILLIP PINA, 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.
The court held that the relatively insignificant value of the stolen property can be a sufficient reason for a downward departure from sentencing guidelines.
Michael Phillip Pina shoplifted a stereo cassette player valued at $145.00 and was convicted of grand theft. The trial court departed downward from th…
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 Value Of Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
WALDEN, Judge.
Michael Phillip Pina shoplifted a stereo cassette player from K-Mart. It had retail value of $145.00. He was tried and found guilty of grand theft, a third degree felony with a maximum penalty of five years.
At sentencing the trial court departed downward from the sentencing guidelines and sentenced Pina to a term of three years. Written reasons therefor were these:
Departure from the sentencing guidelines for the following reasons: (1) maximum sentence is 5 years; (2) property stolen retail value $145.00.
The state appeals and contends that Pina should have been sentenced to five years. We disagree and affirm the downward departure.
The statutory definition of the crime committed by Pina is satisfied, “if the property stolen is: (1) valued at $100.00 or more, but less than $20,000.00.”1 Here the spread between the two figures is obviously large with the $145.00 value of the property stolen by Pina being at the bottom of the spectrum. We are of the opinion that the insignificance, relatively speaking, of the value of the item taken could constitute a clear, convincing, and sufficient reason for the trial court to depart downward from the sentencing guidelines. See State v. Villalovo a/k/a Laso, 481 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Affirmed.
ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur. . Section 812.014(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Johnson, 512 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…s assessment that the stolen typewriter was of minimal value is completely unfounded. We are hard pressed to understand how property valued at $1,100 can be considered to be of minimal value. This case is entirely distinguishable from State v. Pina, 487 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), where the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s downward departure from the sentencing guidelines on the basis that the value of the property stolen was only $145. The court reasoned that because the value of…
-
State v. Demas, 512 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State v. Pina, 487 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); State v. Villalovo, 481 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).…
-
State v. Myers, 515 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…v. Villalovo, 481 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). DANIEL MYERS is functionally illiterate and dyslexic. He clearly has a severely diminished mental capacity. 3. MINIMAL VALUE OF PROPERTY TAKEN The Fourth District Court of Appeal in State v. Pina, 487 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), ruled that the relatively insignificant value of items taken by a defendant convicted of theft constituted a clear and convincing reason to depart downward in sentencing. This principle was the foundation for the courts’ holding…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Villalovo, 481 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)