T.E.J., 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.
A juvenile appellate court affirmed a burglary adjudication but reversed and remanded the petit theft conviction because the State failed to present evidence of the value of stolen items, an essential element of the charged offense. The court reduced the petit theft to second degree misdemeanor and remanded for clarification of the community control term.
The court affirmed the burglary adjudication but reversed the petit theft conviction, holding that the failure to present evidence of the value of stolen items constitutes fundamental error. The court remanded for reduction of the petit theft adjudication to second degree misdemeanor and for specification of the community control term in the commitment order.
[1] The value of stolen items is an essential element of theft charges, and the prosecution must prove this value beyond a reasonable doubt.
[2] A failure to prove the value of stolen items constitutes fundamental error, even if not raised in a motion for judgment of acquittal.
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“Value of stolen items is generally considered an essential element of theft charges.”
Establishes the legal principle that value must be proven as a matter of law in theft prosecutions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceT.E.J. was charged with burglary and petit theft after allegedly reaching into an automobile and removing several items including glasses, cigarettes,…
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
FULMER, Judge.
T.E.J. appeals from a delinquency adjudication of guilt for burglary and petit theft, raising two issues that concern the sufficiency of the evidence and the length of his community control. We affirm the burglary adjudication, but reverse for the trial court to reduce the petit theft to a second degree misdemeanor and to specify the length of the community control in the commitment order. The burglary and petit theft charges arose from an allegation that T.E.J. had reached into an automobile and removed several items, including glasses, cigarettes, documents, and currency. No witness testified as to the value of the items taken. T.E.J. was alleged to have committed petit theft of personal property of more than $100 and less than $300 in value, in violation of section 812.014(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1997). T.E.J. argues on appeal that the adjudication must be reduced to second degree petit theft, pursuant to section 812.014(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), because the evidence was insufficient to prove the charged offense of first degree petit theft.
Value of stolen items is generally considered an essential element of theft charges. See Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), citing Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1974). In Negron, the defendant was convicted of grand larceny for the theft of items valued at more than $100. On appeal, the court held that the State had not presented sufficient evidence of the value of the items and thus the degree of the crime, whether grand or petit larceny, had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. This issue was presented as a claim of fundamental error on appeal in Negron, and the court reduced the conviction to petit larceny.
Here, although the State presented no evidence addressing the value of the stolen items at the adjudicatory hearing, T.E.J. did not raise this failure of proof in his motion for judgment of acquittal. Nevertheless, following Negron, we conclude that this failure of proof on the essential element of value was fundamental error. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to reduce the adjudication to second degree petit theft under section 812.014(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), which encompasses theft of items with a value less than $100.
We also direct the trial court on remand to specify the term of community control in the commitment order. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part for modification of the adjudication and commitment orders.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2003)…CANTERO, J. We review F.B. v. State, 816 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), which certified conflict with T.E.J. v. State, 749 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. As explained below, we approve the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s holding that the insufficiency of the evidence to prove one element of a crime does not constitute fund…
-
Monroe v. State, 191 So. 3d 395 (Fla. 2016)…st raised on appeal. Id. The Fourth District .Court of Appeal held that defendants must preserve a claim that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence of an element of a crime for appellate review, but certified conflict with T.E.J. v. State, 749 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). F.B., 852 So. 2d at 227-28. In T.E.J., the Second District Court of Appeal held that the State’s failure to prove an essential element of an offense constituted fundamental error. Id. at 228 (citing T.E.J., 749 So. 2d at 558). W…
-
Rosalyn Ann Sanders v. State, 765 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…ailure to prove all elements of a charged offense does not constitute “fundamental error” which may be raised for the first time on appeal. James, 745 So. 2d at 1142-43. As to the fundamental error question, we certify conflict with T.E.J. v. State, 749 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Stanton v. State, 746 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); and Brown v. State, 652 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). As to the continuance issue, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court, after finding that defense counsel wa…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ozzie Joseph Negron and Teresa Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1974)
- Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)