D.H., 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.
D.H. was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft of the third degree. The appellate court reversed the grand theft conviction, finding the State failed to prove the value of stolen property met the $300 threshold required for grand theft, requiring remand to reduce the charge to petit theft.
The State failed to present sufficient evidence of the value of the stolen property. Although some original purchase prices were testified to, there was no evidence of fair market value, condition and quality of items, manner of use, or depreciation, which are necessary to establish value for grand theft purposes. The conviction for grand theft must be reversed and remanded.
[1] The State must prove the value of stolen property to meet the threshold for grand theft.
[2] Evidence of original market cost, manner of use, condition, quality, and depreciation can establish the value of stolen property.
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“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 burden of proof for grand theft of the third degree.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD.H.'s home was burglarized and numerous items were taken, including a DVD player, computers, a Sony PlayStation 2, video games, jewelry, matchbox car…
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 Petit Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
D.H. was found guilty of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft of the third degree. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for the grand theft charge, arguing that the State failed to prove the value of the stolen property. We agree that the testimony was insufficient to meet the State’s burden of proof and, therefore, reverse and remand for the trial court to reduce the grand theft to petit theft.
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)(l), Fla. Stat. (2002); Pickett v. State, 839 So. 2d 860, 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). “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.” Pickett, 839 So. 2d at 861-62. The victim of the theft testified that her home was broken into and numerous items were taken, including a DVD player, computers, a Sony PlayStation 2, video games, jewelry, matchbox cars, baseball cards, cameras, and children’s toys. She had paid $199.99 for the PlayStation 2 and paid between $14.99 and $39.99 for the various games. She thought she had six or seven games. The matchbox cars ranged in price from 69 cents to 99 cents each and she had 100 cars. No other testimony was adduced concerning the value of the items taken.
Although there was some testimony of the original • cost of some of the items taken, there was no testimony of fair market value, of thé manner in which the items were used, 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 value over $300. See Doane v. State, 847 So. 2d 1015, 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and. CASANUEVA, JJ., concur. ,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Lucky v. State, 25 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…insufficient to establish the value of such property in theft cases. See C.G.H. v. State, 968 So. 2d 94, 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (purchase price of camera a year earlier, without more, not sufficient to establish value of $300 or more); D.H. v. State, 864 So. 2d 588, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (state failed to establish value of $300 or more of DVD player, computers, Sony PlayStation2, cameras and other items where victim testified to purchase price of some items; court rejected argument that “sheer number and type…
-
R.J.K. v. State, 928 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…with the intent to either temporarily or permanently deprive Mr. Hodge of its use as alleged in the petition. See § 812.014(1), (2)(c)(l), Fla. Stat. (2003). The foregoing allegations, as well as the value of the stolen property, see D.H. v. State, 864 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), had to be established in order to demonstrate that R.J.K. committed third-degree felony grand theft of property. There was no evidence that R.J.K. was in possession of any of his uncle’s money or property or that he had endeavore…
-
Davis v. State, 48 So. 3d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…ket value or through [*180] 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.” D.H. v. State, 864 So. 2d 588, 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (quoting Pickett v. State, 839 So. 2d 860, 861-62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)). In D.H., the victim testified that numerous items were stolen including a DVD player, computers, a Sony PlayStation 2, video games, jewelry, matchbox car…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jacquelyn Postma v. State, 839 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- I.T. v. State, 796 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Doane v. State, 847 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Kennedy v. State, 608 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Randolph v. State, 608 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Soderman v. State, 844 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)