A.B., 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.
Court reversed adjudication of third-degree grand theft and remanded for entry of second-degree petit theft finding because the state failed to prove the stolen cellular telephone was worth $100 or more.
The state failed to establish third-degree grand theft because it presented no evidence that the stolen cellular telephone had a value of $100 or more independent of the service contract cost.
[1] To establish third-degree grand theft under Florida Statute section 812.014(2)(d), the state must prove the stolen property was valued at $100 or more but less than $300;…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 took a cellular telephone from the victim's home. The victim had paid $150 to open a service contract approximately two months before the 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 Second-Degree Petit Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of an adjudication of delinquency based on a finding that appellant had committed what would be third-degree grand theft if committed by an adult. Appellant contends that the evidence presented, viewed in a light most favorable to the state, established only the offense of second-degree petit theft. We agree and, accordingly, reverse and remand with directions that the trial court vacate the order of disposition and enter a new order of disposition finding that appellant committed what would be the offense of second-degree petit theft if committed by an adult.
To establish a prima facie case that appellant committed third-degree grand theft, the state was obliged to prove that the property stolen was valued at $100 or more, but less than $300, and that it was “taken from a dwelling as defined in s. 810.011(2) or from the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling pursuant to s. 810.09(1).” § 812.014(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2005). Appellant was alleged to have taken a cellular telephone from the victim’s home. While there is no question that he did so, the only evidence presented regarding value was to the effect that the victim paid $150 “to open the contract” for phone service approximately two months before the phone was stolen. No evidence was presented that the phone had any value independent of the contract cost, much less that it was worth more than $100. As a result, appellant could only be found to have committed a second-degree petit theft, as defined in section 812.014(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2005).
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, BENTON, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. State, 43 So. 3d 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…erty is worth at least $100, a conviction for first degree petit theft must be reduced to second degree petit theft." Ortiz v. State, 36 So. 3d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). See also White v. State, 993 So. 2d 611, 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); A.B. v. State, 940 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Parrish v. State, 736 So. 2d 752, 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); J.C.B. v. State, 512 So. 2d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Accordingly, second-degree petit theft, as alleged here a misdemeanor of the second degree, § 812.014(3)(…