ROOSEVELT SYLVESTER, 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.
Roosevelt Sylvester appealed his conviction for grand theft and burglary, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding the value of stolen property and claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, finding that the aggregate value of the stolen items exceeded the $300 threshold for grand theft and that Sylvester's counsel claims were without merit.
The court held that the aggregate value of the stolen items was at least $800, exceeding the $300 threshold for grand theft conviction, and that Sylvester's challenge to his counsel was without merit based on his failure to make substantial efforts to dismiss counsel and the absence of evidence of incompetence in the record.
[1] The aggregate value of stolen items may be established by their purchase prices, age, and condition, even without direct evidence of current market value, if the total va…
[2] A defendant's vague and generalized allegations of inadequate representation, without further attempts to dismiss counsel or evidence of incompetence, do not warrant disc…
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“The aggregate value of the items stolen was at least $800 based on the number of items stolen, their newness, and their individual purchase prices (i.e., the tennis bracelet purchased four years earlier for $2,500). The items having a combined value in excess of $300 is "so obvious as to defy contradiction."”
Establishes that sufficient evidence existed to support grand theft conviction based on aggregate value of stolen property exceeding the $300 threshold.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSylvester stole multiple items including a 25-inch television (replaced for $360), a video camera purchased for $600 (replaced for $499), shoes costin…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
Roosevelt Sylvester appeals his conviction for grand theft and burglary. The first basis for this appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal of the grand theft because the state failed to prove the value of the stolen property. Secondly, Sylvester claims the judge erred by denying his motion to discharge his court-appointed counsel. We affirm.
The items stolen by Sylvester consist of a two-to-three-year-old, 25-inch Zenith television, a three-year-old video camera purchased for $600, shoes for which the victim paid $65, a piggy bank containing approximately $50, and jewelry. One item of the jewelry is a four-year-old tennis bracelet which had been purchased for $2,500. The T.V. was replaced for $360 and the video camera was replaced for $499.
The threshold value to convict Sylvester of grand theft is $300. He argues that there was no evidence of the manner in which the items had been used, their gen eral condition and quality, or their depreciated value. However, the aggregate value of the items stolen was at least $800 based on the number of items stolen, their newness, and their individual purchase prices (i.e., the tennis bracelet purchased four years earlier for $2,500). The items having a combined value in excess of $300 is “so obvious as to defy contradiction.” See Jackson v. State, 413 So. 2d 112, 114-115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
Before trial, Sylvester made some vague and generalized allegation that he was not “getting represented right.”1 However, he proceeded to trial with court-appointed counsel without making further attempts to dismiss the assistant public defender,2 there was overwhelming evidence of guilt against Sylvester,3 and the record is devoid of any evidence of incompetence.4 We find this argument to be without merit.
AFFIRMED.
COBB and SAWAYA, JJ., concur. . See Lowe v. State, 650 So. 2d 969 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 887, 116 S.Ct. 230, 133 L.Ed.2d 159 (1995).
. See Mitchell v. State, 678 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 686 So. 2d 580 (Fla.1996).
. See Moultrie v. State, 679 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
. See Marti v. State, 756 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.D. v. State, 30 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…rmissible only in ‘those rare cases where the minimum value of an item of property is so obvious as to defy contradiction.’ ” K.W., 13 So. 3d at 92 (quoting Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So. 2d 404, 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)). See also Sylvester v. State, 766 So. 2d 1223, 1223-24 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (aggregate value of stolen items in excess of $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-y…
-
Ramos v. State, 864 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…nd TORPY, JJ., concur. . § 810.02(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000). . § 794.011(5), Fla. Stat. (2000). . § 812.014(2)(c)(l), Fla. Stat. (2000). . § 784.03, Fla. Stat. (2000). . Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). . Sylvester v. State, 766 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).…
-
Cheyenne Gonzalez v. State, 275 So. 3d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thompson v. State, 650 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1994)
- Stonewall Jackson v. State, 413 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Mitchell v. State, 678 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Moultrie v. State, 679 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Marti v. State, 756 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Texidor v. Bennett M. Lifter, Inc., 756 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Hypolite v. North Carolina, 516 U.S. 887 (U.S. 1995)
- Grimm v. Angelone, 516 U.S. 887 (U.S. 1995)