ARNALDO VALDES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Arnaldo Valdes was convicted of criminal mischief under Florida law. The court affirmed his conviction, holding that proof of property damage value is not an essential element of the crime, but reversed and remanded his three-year sentence as exceeding the statutory maximum of 60 days for a second-degree misdemeanor when damages do not exceed $200.
The value of property damage is not an essential element of criminal mischief; the State need only prove the defendant willfully or maliciously damaged another's property. However, the trial court erred in imposing a three-year sentence because when property damage does not exceed $200, criminal mischief is a second-degree misdemeanor punishable by no more than 60 days imprisonment.
[1] Proof of the value of property damage is not an essential element of the crime of criminal mischief.
[2] To sustain a conviction for criminal mischief, the state must prove that the defendant willfully or maliciously damaged another's property.
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 value of the property damage is not, as Valdes contends, an essential element of the crime”
Establishes the core holding that property value is not required for conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceValdes was charged with and convicted of criminal mischief for damaging another person's property. The jury did not find that the property damage exce…
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 Maximum Term Of Imprisonment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm Valdes’s conviction for criminal mischief pursuant to section 806.-13, Florida Statutes (1985), because proof of the value of the property damage is not, as Valdes contends, an essential element of the crime.
Consequently in order to sustain a conviction the state needed only to prove that Valdes willfully or maliciously damaged another’s property. § 806.-13(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985).
While damage to property is an essential element of the crime of criminal mischief, N.R. v. State, 452 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), once it is established that the defendant damaged another’s property, the value of the property damage is relevant only to the severity of the crime. See § 806.13(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1985); cf. § 812.014, Fla.Stat. (1985) (statute establishing varying degrees for crime of theft based upon value of property involved).
Since the record provides ample evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Valdes willfully and maliciously caused damage to the victim's property, Valdes’s conviction is affirmed.
We reverse Valdes’s concurrent sentence of three years' imprisonment for criminal mischief. The offense of criminal mischief is punishable as a second degree misdemeanor if the property damage does not exceed $200, § 806.13(l)(b)(l), Fla.Stat. (1985), with a maximum term of imprisonment of not more than sixty days, § 775.-082(4)(b), Fla.Stat. (1985).
Since, as the state concedes, the jury did not find that the value of the property damage exceeded $200, the trial court erred in imposing a three year sentence. Cf. Andrews v. State, 316 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (sentence of seven years of imprisonment for criminal mischief reversed where statutory maximum sentence five years and procedure for enhanced sentencing for habitual offender not properly followed).
Since Valdes’s score sheet total is unaffected by this error, we reverse and remand for re-sentencing only on the second-degree misdemeanor for criminal mischief.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Marrero v. State, 71 So. 3d 881 (Fla. 2011)…to the “severity” of the crime. See S.P. v. State, 884 So. 2d 136, 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“[EJven though the damage amount is not an element of the offense of criminal mischief, it is relevant to the severity of the crime.” (citing Valdes v. State, 510 So. 2d 631, 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (emphasis supplied)); J.R.S. v. State, 569 So. 2d 1323, 1325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (“Damage to the property of another is an essential element of the offense of criminal mischief. However, the specific value of the property dam…
-
In the Interest of J.C.B. v. State, 512 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…the property damaged exceeds $1000. If it exceeds $200 but is less than $1000, the crime is a first degree misdemeanor. If the value is less than $200, the crime is a second degree misdemeanor. § 806.-13(l)(b)l, 2, & 3. However, in Valdes v. State, 510 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), it was held that proof of the value of the property damaged was not an essential element of the crime of criminal mischief. Value was found to be relevant only to the severity of the crime. We refuse to follow the reasoning and s…
-
Clark v. State, 746 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…1997). If the damage to the property is $1,000 or greater, the pífense is a third degree felony, see section 806.13(1)(b)3, Florida Statutes (1997). “[T]he value of the property damage is relevant only to the severity of the crime.” Valdes v. State, 510 So. 2d 631, 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). In the instant case, although the state did produce evidence as to the extent of physical damage to Lynn’s vehicle and the repair required, no evidence of the monetary value of the damage or cost of repair was introduced. W…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Andrews v. State, 316 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Wis. Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Gus Leichter and Florence Leichter, 452 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- N.R. v. State, 452 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)