A.D.W., 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.
Appellant A.D.W., a juvenile, was convicted of grand theft and burglary. The Florida appellate court affirmed the burglary conviction for aiding and abetting but reversed the grand theft conviction due to insufficient evidence of the property's value, reducing it to petty theft.
The court affirmed the burglary conviction, finding sufficient evidence that appellant aided and abetted the crime through her presence with the group and concurrent movement between vehicles. However, the court reversed the grand theft conviction and reduced it to petty theft because there was no record evidence establishing that the stolen property's value reached the $300 threshold required for grand theft.
[1] A defendant's presence with a group engaged in criminal activity, coupled with testimony that the group acted in concert, can be sufficient evidence to support a finding…
[2] A conviction for grand theft requires proof that the value of the stolen property meets a statutory minimum threshold.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“This assistance evidenced an intent to participate and amounted to aiding and abetting.”
Court's conclusion that appellant's presence and movement with the group constituted aiding and abetting the burglary
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt 1:00 a.m., a neighbor observed appellant and three other juveniles moving between vehicles at an apartment complex parking lot, appearing to tamper…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges her convictions for grand theft and burglary. We affirm appellant’s burglary conviction because we conclude that there was sufficient evidence that she was aiding and abetting. However, we reverse appellant’s grand theft conviction for insufficient evidence of value, and reduce the conviction to petty theft.
Appellant and three other juveniles, two girls and a boy, were seen at 1:00 a.m. by a neighbor at the Woodlake Apartments moving from truck to truck and car to car, appearing to “mess with” items in the beds of the trucks. The group moved in concert until two stayed at one pickup and two walked over to another part of the parking lot. Two dome lights then came on in the other part of the parking lot, and the two who had stayed at the one pickup proceeded to a red car. This was the car that was burglarized. It looked to the neighbor like the two at the red car were slim-jimming it. A wallet containing $32 and a radar detector were stolen from the red car. After the items were taken from the red car, the group again began moving back and forth between other vehicles on the lot. The neighbor then heard glass breaking and called 911.
Appellant asserts that the perpetrator was McCain, the one male, and McCain confirms this. She also maintains that she discouraged McCain from his planned activities, and McCain confirms this also.
However, the record supports the court’s finding that appellant was an aider or abettor in the burglary based on her admitted presence with the group and the neighbor’s testimony that the group primarily went from car to car as a group. This assistance evidenced an intent to participate and amounted to aiding and abetting. Evans v. State, 643 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. denied, 652 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1995). However, appellant also challenges her conviction for grand theft. Since there is no record evidence of the value of the property stolen, and grand theft requires that the value of the property be at least $300, the grand theft conviction is reduced to petit theft. M.H. v. State, 614 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. & Sergeant Patricia Sedano v. Ahmed Asad, 78 So. 3d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…e, 869 So. 2d 58, 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (finding that because Dayes drove the co-defendant to the encounter with the victims and handed a gun to the co-defendant who shot the victim, Dayes was guilty as a principal to the shooting); A.D.W. v. State, 667 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (upholding the defendant’s burglary conviction as a principal based upon his presence with the group who broke into the vehicle and the evidence that he accompanied the group as they went from car to car, burglarizing them); A.B.G…
Authorities Cited
- Evans v. State, 643 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- M.H. v. State, 614 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)