ORLANDO MITCHELL, 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 State failed to establish the value of the stolen property, which is required for a conviction of first-degree petit theft.
Orlando Mitchell was convicted of first-degree petit theft. The owner testified to the purchase price of the stolen cell phone and tape recorder, esta…
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 Original Market Cost cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Orlando Mitchell challenges his conviction and sentence for first-degree petit theft, arguing that the State failed to establish the value of the items taken. We agree and reverse.
Pursuant to section 812.014(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2003), the State was required to prove that the value of the property taken by Mitchell was more than $100 but less than $300. “ ‘[A]n owner is generally presumed as competent to testify to the value of his stolen property....’ Mere ownership, however, is insufficient, and the witness must have personal knowledge of the property.” I.T. v. State, 796 So. 2d 1220, 1221-22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Taylor v. State, 425 So. 2d 1191, 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)). “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 v. State, 839 So. 2d 860, 861-62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
Here, the State failed to meet this burden. Although the owner had personal knowledge of the cell phone and tape recorder taken and therefore was competent to testify as to their value, he merely testified as to the purchase price of each item, establishing that the items, when purchased, had a combined value of more than $100. However, other than the fact that the items were still in working order, no evidence was offered as to the condition, quality, or age of the items at the time they were stolen or as to any depreciation in value since their purchase. See Taylor, 425 So. 2d at 1193.
As such, we reverse and remand for entry of a conviction and sentence for petit theft in the second degree. See § 812.014(3)(a).
Reversed and remanded.
CANADY, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
K.W. v. State, 983 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…ere was no evidence establishing their value at the time of the theft”). The insufficiency of such evidence of the purchase price is not remedied by the addition of bare evidence that the item was in working order when stolen. See Mitchell v. State, 917 So. 2d 1056, 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that the State did not prove value because although the owner testified to the purchase price of the items and that they were in working order when stolen, “no evidence was offered as to the condition, quality, or a…
-
Bagnara v. State, 189 So. 3d 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…3d 109, 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (reversing because “[t]he victim offered no evidence as to the market value of the [stolen items] at the time of the offense” and instead only provided testimony as to their original purchase price); Mitchell v. State, 917 So. 2d 1056, 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that the State did not prove value because although the owner testified to the purchase price of the items and that they were in working order when stolen, “no evidence was offered as to the condition, quality, or a…
-
Newland v. State, 117 So. 3d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…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. Mitchell v. State, 917 So. 2d 1056, 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting Pickett v. State, 839 So. 2d 860, 861-62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)); see also K.W. v. State, 983 So. 2d 713, 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“Generally, the evidence of value is insufficient when the State presents mere evidence o…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 425 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Jacquelyn Postma v. State, 839 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- I.T. v. State, 796 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)