JOHN PICKETT, 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.
John Pickett appeals his grand theft conviction, arguing the State failed to establish the fair market value of stolen church equipment. The court agrees, holding that testimony about original purchase prices alone is insufficient to prove fair market value at the time of theft, and reverses the grand theft conviction while affirming the burglary conviction.
The State failed to establish fair market value because it presented only the original purchase prices without evidence of depreciation, condition, quality, or manner of use. Testimony solely as to the cost of property is insufficient to establish value at the time of theft. The grand theft conviction is reversed and remanded for entry of a petit theft conviction.
[1] To establish grand theft, the State must prove the value of the stolen property at the time of the theft was $300 or more.
[2] Evidence of the original market cost of property, the manner of its use, its condition and quality, and its depreciation are factors that may be considered to establish f…
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“To establish grand theft of the third degree, the State was required to prove that the value of the stolen property at the time of the theft was $300 or more.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for grand theft conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn June 2000, the Price Street Church of God was burglarized and an amplifier, two speakers, two microphones, and a microphone stand were stolen. Pick…
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 Burglary Of A Structure cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
John Pickett appeals his conviction for grand theft, arguing that the State did not establish the fair market value of the stolen property. We agree and reverse for entry of a conviction and sentence for petit theft.
In Juné 2000 the Price Street Church of God was burglarized. Two speakers, a stereo receiver, two microphones, and a microphone stand were taken. Pickett was arrested and charged with burglary of a structure, grand theft in the third degree (based on a property value of $300 or more), and dealing in stolen property.1 Following a jury trial, Pickett was convicted of the burglary and grand theft charges. He was sentenced as a habitual felony offender to ten years’ imprisonment for the burglary and five years’ imprisonment for the grand theft.
At trial, the State established that an amplifier, two speakers, and two microphones had been stolen. The amplifier had been purchased as a used piece of equipment three or four years before the theft for $369. The speakers were purchased two years before the theft for about $220. The microphones were purchased for $70.
To establish grand theft of the third degree, the State was required to prove that the value of the stolen property at the time of the theft was $300 or more. See § 812.014(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2000); Toler v. State, 779 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Value may be established by direct testimony of fair market value or through evidence of the original market cost of the property, the manner in which the items were used, the condition and quality of the items, and the percentage of depreciation of the items since their purchase. Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104, 108 (Fla.1974), receded from on other grounds, Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So. 2d 968 (Fla.1980); see Korica v. State, 791 So. 2d 543, 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (recognizing the Neg-ron factors to establish fair market value for restitution purposes). Testimony solely as to the cost of the property is insufficient to establish value at the time of the theft. Negron, 306 So. 2d at 108; Vinson v. State, 300 So. 2d 714, 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).
Because the State only established the purchase price for the items and there was no evidence establishing their value at the time of the theft, we reverse the conviction and sentence for grand theft and remand for entry of a conviction and sentence for petit theft of the second degree. See § 812.014(3)(a). We affirm without comment the conviction and sentence for burglary.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
WHATLEY and KELLY, JJ., Concur. . The State eventually dropped the charge of dealing in stolen property.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diaz v. Secretary, DOC (Collier County) (M.D. Fla. 2020)
-
Fernandez v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Fla. 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Honorable Robert A. Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1980)
- Ozzie Joseph Negron and Teresa Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1974)
- Korica v. State, 791 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Toler v. State, 779 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Vinson v. State, 300 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)