M.H., A CHILD, 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.
In this juvenile delinquency appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed M.H.'s conviction for burglary but reversed his conviction for grand theft due to insufficient evidence of the property value requirement, directing that the conviction be reduced to petit theft instead.
The conviction for burglary was affirmed as the evidence was sufficient. However, the grand theft conviction was reversed because the state failed to prove the property value was $300 or more, which is required to establish grand theft. The case was remanded with directions to adjudicate appellant delinquent for petit theft instead. The restitution amount was upheld as proper.
[1] A conviction for grand theft requires proof that the stolen property has a value of $300 or more.
[2] Where evidence fails to establish the value of stolen property meets the threshold for grand theft, the conviction should be reduced to petit theft.
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“In order to establish grand theft, the state must prove that the property taken has a value of $300 or more.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for grand theft conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.H. was charged with burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. An adjudicatory hearing was conducted, and at the close of the state's evidence and all …
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 Grand Theft Elements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the order adjudicating him guilty of burglary and grand theft. We agree with appellant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the offense of grand theft. We affirm the sentence and conviction of burglary but reverse the conviction of grand theft.
The state charged appellant with committing the delinquent acts of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. The trial court conducted an adjudicatory hearing. At the close of the state’s evidence and at the close of all the evidence, the appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal on both charges. The trial court denied the appellant’s motion. The trial court found appellant guilty of both burglary and grand theft. The trial court in its order of adjudication directed that appellant be continued in committed status. The trial court also ordered appellant to make restitution. Appellant filed this timely appeal.
We find no error in the appellant’s conviction on the burglary charge. We affirm the burglary conviction. However, there was insufficient evidence presented to convict appellant of grand theft, and we, accordingly, reverse that conviction.
In order to establish grand theft, the state must prove that the property taken has a value of $300 or more. § 812.-014(l)(c)l, Fla.Stat. (1989). Although the evidence presented by the state established that the value of the stolen property was more than $100 dollars, the evidence did not establish that the value was $300 or more. Since there was no evidence that, the value of the property was $300 or more, the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of grand theft. In Interest of F.R., 539 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). In absence of proof of the value of the stolen property, the adjudication of delinquency based on grand theft should be reduced to petit theft. L.C. and C.F. v. State, 579 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
We reject the appellant’s argument concerning the amount of restitution. The evidence in the record concerning the burglary conviction and the appellant’s stipulation as to the amount of restitution refute appellant’s contention that the amount of restitution was improper. The adjudication of delinquency for burglary is affirmed. The adjudication of delinquency for grand theft is vacated and we remand with directions that appellant be adjudicated delinquent for petit theft.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.K.L. v. State, 662 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…presented by the state was that a radar detector and wallet were taken from the victim’s vehicle. Since there was no evidence that the property was worth $300 or more, the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of grand theft. M.H. v. State, 614 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Accordingly, appellant’s conviction for grand theft is reduced to petit theft. Affirmed in part, reversed in part. RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and FRANK, JJ., concur.…
-
Jarvis Robinson v. State, 686 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…EFT TO PETIT THEFT It is well settled that proof of the element of value is essential to a conviction [*1373] for grand theft and must be established by the state beyond a reasonable doubt. Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1974); M.H. v. State, 614 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Cofield v. State, 474 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Section 812.012(9)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (1995), states: Value means the market value of the property at the time and place of the offense or, if such cannot, be satisfacto…
-
Sanford Paul Butler v. State, 901 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…llaterally attack a restitution order that was entered while the trial court lacked jurisdiction). If he does, the circuit court must determine whether the stipulation as to the amount was valid and thus remains binding on Butler. See M.H. v. State, 614 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Affirmed. STRINGER, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., Senior Judge, Concur.…
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
- In the Interest of F.R., 539 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- L.C. & C.F. v. State, 579 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)