D.L., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1989-07-18
No. 87-1065
Per Curiam
546 So. 2d 454 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1989) Caution
Cited by 10 cases

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.

Synopsis

Court reversed juvenile's grand theft adjudication because the state failed to prove the stolen property's market value at the time of theft met the $300 threshold, requiring remand for petit theft adjudication instead.


Holding

The state must prove the market value of stolen property at the time of the theft, not its retail cost at an earlier date, to support a grand theft adjudication.


Headnotes

[1] To establish grand theft under Florida Statute § 812.014(2)(c), the state must prove the market value of stolen property at the time of the theft, not its retail cost at…

Previewing 1 of 1 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

Facts & Procedural History

D.L., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for grand theft under Florida Statute § 812.014(2)(c)(1). The state presented evidence only of the retail…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

D.L., a juvenile, appeals an adjudication of delinquency predicated on grand theft. § 812.014(2)(c)(l), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1986). D.L. contends that the evidence supports, at most, an adjudication of delinquency for petit theft, rather than grand theft.

We agree and reverse. The state did not present evidence that the market value of the stolen property at the time of the theft was at least $300; it presented evidence only as to the retail cost of the stolen property one year prior to the theft. See Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1974), receded from on other grounds, Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So. 2d 968 (Fla.1980); In the Interest of F.R., 539 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); F.W. v. State, 459 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Taylor v. State, 425 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Beasley v. State, 305 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 315 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1975); cf. Butler v. State, 354 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (owner may testify as to fair market value of stolen items at time of theft).

Accordingly, we reverse the adjudication of delinquency for grand theft and remand with directions to adjudicate D.L. delinquent for petit theft. J.G. v. State, 544 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); § 812.014(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1986).

Reversed and remanded.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • J.O. v. State, 552 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
    …nt of restitution and the victim’s statement that “practically brand new” video equipment had been stolen, the state did not present evidence that the market value of the stolen property at the time of the theft was at least $300. See D.L. v. State, 546 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); see also In Interest of F.R., 539 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); F.W. v. State, 459 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Taylor v. State, 425 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Beasle…
  • Wesly Dumervil v. State, 603 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
    …g the defendant guilty of third-degree grand theft, claiming that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the value of the stolen property at $300.00 or more. We agree. See J.O. v. State, 552 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); D.L. v. State, 546 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Accordingly, the conviction for grand theft must be reduced to petit theft. Finally, the defendant argues, and the State correctly agrees, that the trial court erred in imposi…
  • Smith v. State, 955 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
    …paid between $315 and $320 for the vehicle when he purchased it three to four months before the subject [*1229] theft ... was insufficient to establish that the goped’s fair market value was $300 or more at the time it was stolen.”); D.L. v. State, 546 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (evidence only as to the retail cost of the stolen property, one year prior to the theft, was insufficient to sustain conviction for grand theft). In Doane v. State, 847 So. 2d 1015, 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), the stolen property…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw