FREDERICK SODERMAN, 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 state failed to introduce competent evidence of the value of stolen items exceeding $300, thus reversing the grand theft conviction.
[1] Proof of the cost of stolen items is insufficient to establish their market value for purposes of a grand theft charge.
[2] A conviction for grand theft requires competent evidence that the value of the stolen items exceeded 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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of burglary and grand theft. The state proved the value of one stolen tool was $100, but only offered the owner's testimony th…
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 Sentencing Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
TORPY, J.
Appellant was convicted of burglary and grand theft. He raises several points on appeal, only one of which merits discussion. Appellant contends that he was improperly convicted of grand theft because the state failed to introduce competent evidence that the value of the items stolen exceeded $300.00. § 812.014(2)(c)l, Fla. Stat. We agree and reverse his conviction and sentence on this charge.
Appellant burglarized an Alied Discount Tire store and removed several tools. At trial, the state established that the value of one of the tools, a clutch puller, was $100.00. No testimony was adduced, however, as to the value of the other items taken or attempted to be taken by Appellant from the premises. The owner of the tools, rather, testified that the cost of these items exceeded $300.00. Athough the owner certainly would have been competent to testify as to the market value of the stolen items, mere reference to the cost of these items is not sufficient to carry the state’s burden to support a grand theft charge. Negron v. State, 806 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1974); Kitt v. State, 834 So. 2d 390, 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
The judgment and sentence on the grand theft charge, therefore, are reversed. This cause is remanded to the circuit court so that judgment may be entered for petit theft and sentence imposed accordingly. Because the reduction of the grand theft conviction to petit theft will require that the circuit court amend the sentencing scoresheet, Appellant’s sentence on the burglary count is also reversed, and this cause is also remanded for re-sentencing on the burglary conviction.1
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
SAWAYA and PLEUS, JJ., concur. . Although the sentence imposed on Count I (burglary) is less than the statutory maximum and, therefore, legal, notwithstanding the amendment to the scoresheet, the trial judge might have considered the total score in determining what sentence is proper. Reconsideration of this sentence, therefore, is left to the discretion of the trial court, who may choose to impose the same sentence on this count.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.H. v. State, 864 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ed, of the condition or quality, nor the percentage of depreciation. A number of cases have been reversed under circumstances similar to these. See Pickett, 839 So. 2d 860; Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Soderman v. State, 844 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); I.T. v. State, 796 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Randolph v. State, 608 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). We reject the State’s argument that the description of the items stolen, by their sheer number and type, indicates a valu…
-
Ramos v. State, 864 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…hat the replacement item was similar in value to the item stolen at the time of the taking. Doane. But the purchase price of the stolen items, in this case, standing alone, is insufficient to establish their value exceeds $300.00. Soderman v. State, 844 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we reverse Ramos’ conviction and sentence for grand theft and remand for entry of a judgment and séntence for petit theft. Since Ramos received a sentence of time served on this count and the sentencing points he r…
-
J. M. v. State, 890 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…fair market value was $300 or more at the time it was stolen. As such, the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the grand theft charge should have been granted. See D.H. v. State, 864 So. 2d 588, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Soderman v. State, 844 So. 2d 823, 823-24 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Raynor v. State, 341 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Accordingly, we reverse the finding that J.M. was guilty of grand theft, and remand with directions to find J.M. guilty of the lesser offense of petit theft and ente…
Authorities Cited
- Sheppard v. State, 834 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Kitt v. State, 834 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)