SHARON TOLER, 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.
The court held that the owner's testimony regarding the value of the stolen television was insufficient to prove it exceeded $300, thus not supporting a grand theft conviction.
[1] Proof of the value of stolen property is essential to a conviction for grand theft and must be established by the state beyond a reasonable doubt.
[2] A property owner's testimony that the value of an item was "roughly" in excess of $300 is insufficient to establish the value element for grand theft.
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of burglary and grand theft after entering a home and taking a television. The only evidence of the television's value was the…
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 Evidentiary Burden cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Appellant, Sharon Toler, challenges her conviction and sentence for burglary of a dwelling and grand theft in the third degree. Appellant raises several issues on appeal; however, the only point meriting discussion is appellant’s assertion that the evidence was not sufficient to support her conviction for grand theft. Because the State did not meet its evidentiary burden, we reverse appellant’s grand theft conviction and reduce the conviction to petit theft.
This case arose from appellant entering a home and removing a television. The only evidence presented at trial as to the value of the television was given by the owner of the property. When asked whether the value of the television was in excess of $300, the owner responded, “Roughly, uh-huh.” The owner testified that she had purchased the television a week earlier; however, the State did not elicit any testimony concerning how much she paid for the television. Grand theft in the third degree requires that the value of the property stolen be $300 or more. See § 812.014(2)(e), Fla.Stat. (1997). “Proof of the element of value is essential to a conviction for grand theft and must be established by the state beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.” Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 1040, 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). In this case, the owner’s use of the term “roughly” indicates,that she was estimating the value of the property at around $300. The inference from this testimony was that the television could be valued at slightly more or less than $300. Thus, the owner’s testimony was not sufficient to establish that the value of the property was $300 or more. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the State failed to meet its evidentiary burden, and appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted.
Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence for burglary of a dwelling. We reduce appellant’s conviction for grand theft to petit theft and remand this case for resentencing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
PARKER, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gilbert v. State, 817 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…ird item was “worth at least that much”); Moore v. State, 183 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966) [*983] (testimony that cost of replacing stolen item was approximately $300 where the approximation was not directed solely to stolen item); Toler v. State, 779 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (owner’s testimony that property was “roughly” in excess of $300 insufficient); In Interest of F.R., 539 So. 2d 588, 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (evidence insufficient where owner estimated property’s value at “about 310 [dollars], so…
-
Doane v. State, 847 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…and a third item was “worth at least that much”); Moore v. State, 183 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)(testimony that cost of replacing stolen item was approximately $300 where the approximation was not directed solely to stolen item); Toler v. State, 779 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(own-er’s testimony that property was “roughly” in excess of $300 insufficient); In Interest of F.R., 539 So. 2d 588, 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (evidence insufficient where owner estimated property’s value at “about 310 [dollars], so…
-
A.D. v. State, 30 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…value of the stolen items is an essential element of the offense, the value must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. State, 23 So. 3d 206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Smith v. State, 955 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Toler v. State, 779 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). An estimate of the value of the items, without more, is insufficient. See Jones v. State, 958 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Sellers v. State, 838 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st [*678] DCA 2003); Gilbert v. State, 817 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Grover Evans v. State, 452 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)