S.A.S., 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 items stolen years prior to the theft is insufficient to prove the value of the property at the time of the theft for third-degree grand theft.
A juvenile was adjudicated for third-degree grand theft. The victim testified to the purchase price of items stolen many years before the burglary. No…
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
SALCINES, Judge.
S.A.S., a juvenile, appeals his adjudication for third-degree grand theft. We reverse and remand.
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. (2006). At the adjudicatory hearing the victim testified regarding the purchase price of the items she had obtained many years prior to the burglary. No other evidence was given to establish the value of the items 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).
The evidence was insufficient to establish that the value of the victim’s property at the time of the theft was more than $300. S.A.S.’s adjudication is reversed, and the matter is remanded 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).
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bloodsaw v. State, 994 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…on value. However, the State made no such request and relied on the record already made. As a result, the evidence of value is legally insufficient to support the conviction for third-degree grand theft. Negron, 306 So. 2d at 108; S.A.S. v. State, 970 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Mansfield, 954 So. 2d at 76-77; Pickett, 839 So. 2d at 861-62; Dumervil v. State, 603 So. 2d 20, 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); J.O. v. State, 552 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); D.L. v. State, 546 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Beasley…
-
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)