ANTWAN BROWN, 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.
Antwan Brown appealed his convictions for armed burglary and third-degree grand theft, arguing insufficient evidence of the value of stolen items, jury confusion regarding physical evidence, and the improper characterization of the weapon. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions and sentences, finding his arguments meritless and criticizing his mischaracterization of the trial record.
The Court affirmed Brown's convictions and sentences, finding: (1) the evidence established stolen items totaling $220 in value, exceeding the $100 threshold; (2) the trial court properly instructed the jury to consider only the stipulated photographs of stolen jewelry, and no error occurred; and (3) the weapon was clearly a dagger or dirk with a four-inch fixed blade, not a pocket knife, supporting the armed burglary conviction.
[1] Evidence of the victim's testimony regarding the value of stolen items, combined with the victim's wife's testimony, can be sufficient to establish the value threshold fo…
[2] A trial court properly instructs a jury to consider only admitted evidence and stipulated exhibits when the jury expresses confusion about the authenticity of items prese…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“He claims that the only value evidence was the testimony of the victim's wife that two stolen rings were worth "like a hundred dollars." Mr. Brown ignores the victim's testimony that the rings were each worth $50, a stolen watch was worth $100, and the stolen knife was worth $20. These amounts total $220.”
Establishes that the State presented sufficient evidence of the value of stolen items exceeding the $100 threshold for grand theft.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown was convicted of armed burglary and third-degree grand theft after allegedly stealing jewelry and a knife from a victim's home. The stolen items…
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 Third Degree Grand Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
LaROSE, Judge.
Antwan Brown appeals his convictions and sentences for armed burglary and third-degree grand theft. The trial court sentenced him as a Prison Releasee Reof-fender to thirty years in prison for the burglary, five years in prison for the grand theft, and fourteen years in prison for various probation violations, all sentences to run concurrently. Mr. Brown’s arguments on appeal are meritless. Accordingly, we affirm.
Mr. Brown first contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that the stolen items — a knife and some jewelry — exceeded the threshold $100 in value necessary to constitute grand theft from a dwelling. See § 812.014(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2005). He claims that the only value evidence was the testimony of the victim’s wife that two stolen rings were worth “like a hundred dollars.” Mr. Brown ignores the victim’s testimony that the rings were each worth $50, a stolen watch was worth $100, and the stolen knife was worth $20. These amounts total $220. Mr. Brown’s argument on this point cannot withstand scrutiny.
Mr. Brown argues next that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial after allowing the jury to examine rings that the victim brought to trial, despite the fact that they were not the stolen rings. Mr. Brown mischaracterizes the record. During deliberations, the jury members sent a note stating that they did not think the rings they saw at trial were the rings shown in photographs entered into evidence. The jury asked what evidence they should consider. After consulting with counsel, the trial court instructed the jury to consider only the photographs, which both sides stipulated showed jewelry found in Mr. Brown’s pockets upon his arrest. The record belies Mr. Brown’s claim that he and the State agreed that the photographs did not show the actual stolen items.
Finally, Mr. Brown argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal for armed burglary. According to Mr. Brown, the State’s evidence showed that the alleged weapon was a pocket knife. This argument, too, is disingenuous. The knife, and pictures of it, were admitted into evidence. It is a dagger or dirk with an approximate four-inch fixed blade. Clearly, it is not a pocket knife. See State v. Walthour, 876 So. 2d 594, 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Although we are reluctant to conclude that Mr. Brown deliberately misrepresented the record, we can say that he has ignored, discounted, or distorted the evidence and testimony presented to the jury and trial court. Our careful review of the record reflects no trial court error. We affirm Mr. Brown’s convictions and sentences. Moreover, we take this opportunity to remind parties and counsel who appear before us to present the facts and law in an accurate and forthright manner. See Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 571 (Fla.2005); Hays v. Johnson, 566 So. 2d 260, 261 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parris v. State, 974 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…opinions. What can be determined is that preservation was not an impediment in either case. REHEARING DENIED. LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur. . Appellant also sought rehearing en banc, which has been denied by separate order. . Bitzer v. State, 958 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Knight v. State, 954 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Knight relied upon our decision in Brown v. State, 786 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), in which the error had [*416] been preserved by a rule 3.800(b) motion. Brown, 786 So.…
-
Hileman v. State, 2 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). The defendant admitted the other two grounds; we, therefore, affirm the revocation but remand to the trial court to correct the sentence to omit any reference to the new violation of [*1066] law. See Bitzer v. State, 958 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). The defendant need not be present for this correction. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for correction of sentence.…
Authorities Cited
- Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2005)
- State v. Walthour, 876 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Hays v. Johnson, 566 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)