J.R., 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.
J.R. appealed his grand theft conviction, challenging whether the State proved the stolen items' value met the $300 threshold required for that offense. The appellate court found the owner's testimony insufficient to establish the monetary value of products removed from the vending machine and vacated the grand theft conviction while affirming other convictions.
No. The State failed to prove the element of value necessary for grand theft. The owner's testimony was insufficient because it failed to establish the number of products actually removed or their total monetary value. The conviction for grand theft was vacated and remanded for resentencing as second-degree petit theft.
[1] Proof of the element of value is essential to a conviction for grand theft and must be established by the state beyond a reasonable doubt.
[2] A conviction for grand theft may be vacated when the State fails to prove the monetary value of the stolen property met the statutory threshold.
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“It is well settled that proof of the element of value is essential to a conviction for grand theft and must be established by the state beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Establishes the legal standard that value is an essential element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in grand theft cases.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.R. stole products from a vending machine. The vending machine owner testified that the business normally generated $300 per week at that account and…
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 Criminal Mischief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
J.R. appeals his conviction of grand theft of the third-degree alleging that the State failed to prove the element of value. More specifically, that the monetary value of the products removed from a vending machine that J.R. stole from equaled or exceeded $300.00, the threshold amount for the crime of grand theft.
The State presented the testimony of the owner of the vending machine in an attempt to prove the value of the items removed from the vending machine. The owner testified that “normally we do three hundred dollars a week at that account.” He further testified that a shelf of candy bars and a shelf of pastries were missing with a value of $70 or $80 per shelf. He then testified as to the number of shelves contained in the machine, but did not indicate that all products had been taken from the machine. Thus, the owner’s testimony was lacking in that it failed to establish the number of products removed from the vending machine, much less the monetary value of those products. See, e.g., Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1974); Robinson v. State, 686 So. 2d 1370, 1372-73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(“It is well settled that proof of the element of value is essential to a conviction for grand theft and must be established by the state beyond a reasonable doubt.”) Accordingly, we vacate the conviction for grand theft and remand for re-sentencing of the conviction to second-degree petit theft pursuant to section 812.014(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2001).
We affirm the remaining convictions finding no merit in J.R.’s argument that his other convictions for criminal mischief pursuant to section 806.13, Florida Statutes, and malicious damage to a vending machine pursuant to section 877.08(2), Florida Statutes (2001), constitute a double jeopardy violation.
AFFIRMED IN PART; CONVICTION VACATED IN PART; REMANDED.
THOMPSON, C.J., PETERSON and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ozzie Joseph Negron and Teresa Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1974)
- Jarvis Robinson v. State, 686 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)