C.G.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.
The court held that evidence of the purchase price of stolen property alone is insufficient to prove its market value at the time of the theft for third-degree grand theft charges.
A juvenile was found guilty of burglary and third-degree grand theft. The victim testified to the purchase price of the stolen camera one year prior t…
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
DANAHY, PAUL W„ Senior Judge.
We review the order of the trial court that found C.G.H., a juvenile, guilty of the delinquent acts of burglary of a conveyance and third-degree grand theft. Following the adjudicatory hearing and findings of guilt, the court withheld adjudication and placed C.G.H. on probation. We affirm the trial court’s finding of guilt of the delinquent act of burglary without further discussion but reverse the finding of guilt as to the grand theft.
An essential element of third-degree grand theft is proof that the value of the stolen property is $300 or more at the time of the theft. § 812.014(2)(c)(l), Fla. Stat. (2005). At trial the victim testified he purchased the camera taken in the burglary one year prior to the offense. Evidence was presented concerning the purchase price of the camera, but no other information was given to establish the value of the item at the time of the theft. “Value means the market value of the property at the time and place of the offense or, if such cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property within a reasonable time after the offense.” § 812.012(10)(a)(l). Testimony only of the purchase price of an item without establishing the value at the time of the theft is insufficient to sustain a finding of guilt of third-degree theft. See Pickett v. State, 839 So. 2d 860, 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accordingly, we reverse the finding of guilt of grand theft and remand this matter to the trial court. On remand, the trial court is directed to reduce the grand theft to petit theft and enter a new disposition order. See Jones v. State, 958 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
ALTENBERND and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lucky v. State, 25 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…erated obsolescence because manufacturers are constantly releasing new, improved technology at lower prices. For this reason, purchase price alone is generally 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,…
-
K.W. v. State, 983 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…ence of value is insufficient when the State presents mere evidence of the purchase price of the stolen item but no evidence establishing the condition, quality, age, or depreciation of the item at the time it was stolen. See, e.g., C.G.H. v. State, 968 So. 2d 94, 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“Evidence was presented concerning the purchase price of the camera, but no other information was given to establish the value of the item at the time of the theft.”); Pickett v. State, 839 So. 2d 860, 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…
-
Russell v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Jacquelyn Postma v. State, 839 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Jones v. State, 958 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)