WILBERT L. RANDOLPH, JR., 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.
Wilbert Randolph appeals his conviction for third degree grand theft, arguing the state failed to prove the stolen property was valued at $300 or more. The court agrees and reverses, holding that absent proof of value established beyond reasonable doubt, a grand theft conviction cannot stand.
A conviction for grand theft based on value cannot be sustained when the state has failed to produce evidence of the stolen property's value and the value is not self-evident. The jury cannot speculate about minimum value; proof of value must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
[1] A conviction for grand theft cannot stand absent proof that the value of the stolen items was $300 or more.
[2] Mere proof of the nature of stolen property is generally insufficient to sustain a conviction for grand theft.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Mere proof of the nature of the stolen property is generally insufficient to sustain a conviction for grand theft.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that the state must prove value, not merely identify what was stolen
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRandolph and his companion broke into a vacant house and stole a Kenmore microwave, color TV, kitchenware, bicycle, blanket, candle holders, and towel…
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 Third Degree Grand Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Judge.
Wilbert Randolph, Jr. appeals his conviction for third degree grand theft1 contending his conviction must be reversed because the state failed to produce any evidence that the property he stole was valued at $300 or more. We agree and reverse.
At trial, there was testimony that defendant and his companion, William Piffner, broke into a vacant house and stole a Kenmore microwave, a color TV, some kitehen-ware, a bicycle, a blanket, candle holders and towels. The owner of the items did not appear at trial and the state introduced no evidence concerning the fair market value of any of the items. The three major items stolen — the bicycle, microwave and color TV — were never recovered.2 No description of these items was offered at trial nor was there any evidence of their age or condition. No evidence of purchase price or replacement cost was introduced. The only evidence was photographs of a few items of kitchenware, primarily dishes and two clocks, recovered prior to trial.
Defendant correctly contends that, absent proof that the value3 of the items he stole was $300 or more, his conviction for grand theft cannot stand. Mere proof of the nature of the stolen property is generally insufficient to sustain a conviction for grand theft.4 The state acknowledges that proof of the element of value is essential and must be established by the state beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104, 108 (Fla.1974), receded from on other grounds, Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So. 2d 968 (Fla.1980).
There are, of course, cases in which the minimum value of an item of property is “so obvious as to defy contradiction”. See Jackson v. State, 413 So. 2d 112, 114-115 (Fla. 2d DCA1982) (involving theft of a 37-foot sail boat). In such cases, the jury can then make a finding of “minimum” value based on section 812.012(9)(b), Florida Statutes (1989):
If the value of property cannot be ascertained, the trier of fact may find the value to be not less than a certain amount; if no such minimum value can be ascertained, the value is an amount less than $100.
This section, however, does not permit a jury simply to speculate about a minimum value. Where the state has failed to produce evidence of the value of stolen property and the value is not self-evident, a conviction for grand theft based on value cannot be sustained. Jackson, 413 So. 2d at 114; Samet v. State, 284 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are reversed with instructions to enter a judgment for petit theft and to resentence defendant accordingly. Dumervil v. State, 603 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
W. SHARP, and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . § 812.014(2)(c)(l), Fla.Stat. (1989).
. Piffner admitted that they sold the television and the microwave at a local convenience store, but he was not asked how much money they received from the sale.
. "Value” is defined in section 812.012(9).
. J.O. v. State, 552 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (victim’s statement that “practically brand new” video equipment had been stolen was insufficient to prove property stolen had value of more than $300); Sori v. State, 477 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (evidence of nature of items stolen insufficient to support conviction for grand theft, absent proof of market value of items); Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA1984) (evidence that defendant was in possession of three coats stolen from Sears, where all coats stolen had average retail value of $50, insufficient to sustain conviction for grand theft based on value in excess of $100); Jones v. State, 408 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA1982) (evidence insufficient to support conviction for grand theft, even though television introduced into evidence at trial, where no independent proof of value).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
I.T. v. State, 796 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…tate, 575 So. 2d 1372, 1373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(owner demonstrated cost of stolen bicycle by testifying as to the purchase price and the costs expended on improving the bicycle and its condition at the time of the theft); see also Randolph v. State, 608 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)(state failed to prove that value of stolen property was over $300 where it presented no description of the stolen items or testimony as to their age or condition; no evidence of purchase price or replacement cost); S.M.M. v. Stat…
-
D.H. v. State, 864 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…nder circumstances similar to these. See Pickett, 839 So. 2d 860; Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Soderman v. State, 844 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); I.T. v. State, 796 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Randolph v. State, 608 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). We reject the State’s argument that the description of the items stolen, by their sheer number and type, indicates a value over $300. See Doane v. State, 847 So. 2d 1015, 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Reversed and remanded. NORT…
-
A.D. v. State, 30 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…$300 “ ‘is so obvious as to defy contradiction’”) (quoting Jackson, 413 So. 2d at 114-115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (reasonable persons could not doubt that value of less than one-year old, operable 37-foot sail boat was $100 or more)); Randolph v. State, 608 So. 2d 573, 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (“There are, of course, cases in which the minimum value of an item of property is ‘so obvious as to defy contradiction.’ ” (quoting Jackson v. State, 413 So. 2d at 114-115)). We decline the State’s invitation to find that t…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Honorable Robert A. Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1980)
- Ozzie Joseph Negron and Teresa Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1974)
- Stonewall Jackson v. State, 413 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Grover Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Samet v. State, 284 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- J.O. v. State, 552 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Jones v. State, 408 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Wesly Dumervil v. State, 603 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Profitt v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 477 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Sori v. State, 477 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)