J.T., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2002-05-08
No. 4D01-87
GUNTHER, STONE, and GROSS, JJ., concur.
816 So. 2d 754 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2002)

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.


Holding

The court held that the state failed to prove the value of stolen merchandise using inadmissible hearsay, and the defendant's objections were properly preserved.


Facts & Procedural History

J.T. was adjudicated delinquent for first-degree petit theft, but the state's only evidence of the merchandise's value was hearsay. J.T. appealed, arg…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

[*755] PER CURIAM.

J.T. was adjudicated delinquent on the charge of first-degree petit theft. He appeals his adjudication only as to the state’s failure to prove the value of the stolen merchandise. Under section 812.014(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1999), the state was required to prove the value of the merchandise was between one hundred dollars ($100) and three hundred dollars ($300). The only evidence adduced at trial to establish this element of the charge was the hearsay testimony of two witnesses who, admittedly, had no personal knowledge of the price or value of the stolen items.

On appeal, the state does not dispute that the statements were hearsay. Instead, it argues that J.T. did not adequately preserve his objections for appeal. We disagree. Therefore, having determined that J.T.’s objections were timely, we conclude that the state failed to prove the value of the stolen items, an essential element of the charge, as it relied entirely on inadmissible hearsay. As such, we must reverse the adjudication of delinquency for petit theft in the first degree and remand with directions to adjudicate J.T. delinquent for petit theft in the second degree under section 812.014(3)(a), Florida Statutes.1 See T.E.J. v. State, 749 So. 2d 557, 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)(reversing adjudication for first-degree petit theft and remanding for adjudication on second-degree petit theft where state produced no evidence of value of stolen property).

We also reverse and remand the order of disposition. As the state concedes, J.T. was entitled to credit for time served in secure detention. See L.K v. State, 729 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); C.B. v. State, 729 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); E.R. v. State, 584 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

GUNTHER, STONE, and GROSS, JJ., concur. . Section 812.014(3)(a) provides:

Theft of any property not specified in subsection (2) is petit theft of the second degree and a misdemeanor of the second degree ....

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw