LEONARDO MARRERO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Marrero appeals his conviction for criminal mischief after driving his truck into casino entrance doors. The court affirmed, holding that the jury could reasonably infer from the video evidence that the damage to four impact-resistant doors exceeded the $1,000 threshold for a felony conviction without explicit proof of repair/replacement costs.
The conviction is affirmed. Based on the jury's viewing of a videotape showing the destruction of four extremely tall impact-resistant doors with special mechanisms, the jury could reasonably conclude from common experience that the cost of repair or replacement exceeded $1,000, satisfying the statutory damage threshold without explicit cost testimony.
[1] In a criminal mischief case, the amount of damage is measured by the cost of repair or replacement.
[2] If the State seeks to prove criminal mischief exceeding a statutory damage threshold, it must generally present evidence of the cost of repair or replacement.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a trial court may conclude 'that certain repairs are so self-evident that the fact-finder could conclude based on life experience that the statutory damage threshold has been met....'”
Establishes the exception to the general rule requiring explicit proof of damage costs, allowing courts to rely on common experience and circumstantial evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter gambling losses, Marrero drove his Ford F150 pickup truck into the entrance of the Miccosukee Casino, destroying four impact-resistant glass doo…
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 Criminal Mischief cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of a conviction for criminal mischief. The question is whether the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the damage was $1000 or greater. See § 806.13(l)(b)3., Fla. Stat. (2006). We affirm.
After gambling losses, defendant-appellant Marrero drove his Ford F150 pickup truck into an entrance at the Miccosukee *823Casino. The entrance consisted of four impact-resistant glass doors, sixteen or seventeen feet tall, each framed in special aluminum materials. One of these was a door with an automated entry system for the handicapped. The doors had been operational prior to the crash, but were destroyed, and had to be replaced. In addition, a patron of the casino was injured.
The State charged the defendant with criminal mischief. The offense is a third-degree felony if the damage is $1000 or greater. For this crime, the amount of damage is measured by the cost of repair or cost of replacement.1,2 If there is no competent evidence of value, then the conviction must be for the lowest level of offense, a misdemeanor of the second degree. See id. § 806.13(l)(b)l.
In this case the State did not present any evidence of the cost of repair or replacement of the four doors. The defense moved for a judgment of acquittal on that count, which was denied. The defendant was convicted as charged, and has appealed.
As a general rule, it will be necessary for the State to present evidence of the cost of repair or replacement in a criminal mischief case, if the State wishes to convict the defendant of mischief exceeding either the $200 or $1000 threshold. See id. § 806.13(l)(b)2., 3.
It has been said that “a trial court may conclude ‘that certain repairs are so self-evident that the fact-finder could conclude based on life experience that the statutory damage threshold has been met....’” T.B.S. v. State, 935 So.2d 98, 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting A.D. v. State, 866 So.2d 752, 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)); S.P. v. State, 884 So.2d 136, 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Clark v. State, 746 So.2d 1237, 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
In this case the jury had a videotape of the collision which destroyed four extremely tall impact-resistant doors, including one door with a special mechanism for handicapped entry. We agree with the trial court that based on common experience, the jury could reasonably conclude that the cost of repair or replacement easily exceeded $250 per door or $1000 in the aggregate. We therefore affirm the conviction and the restitution order.3
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marrero v. State, 71 So. 3d 881 (Fla. 2011)…PER CURIAM. Leonardo Marrero (Marrero) seeks review of the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Marrero v. State, 22 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), asserting that it expressly and directly conflicts with decisions of the First and Second District Courts of Appeal in T.B.S. v. State, 935 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), S.P. v. State, 884 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), A.D. v. S…
-
A.D. v. State, 30 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…finding of guilt for grand theft to petit theft. Reversed and remanded. . receded from on other grounds by F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226 (Fla.2003), and Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So. 2d 968 (Fla.1980). . Indeed, this Court in Marrero v. State, 22 So. 3d 822, 823 & n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), specifically noted that under the criminal mischief statute, "the amount of damage is measured by the cost of repair or cost of replacement. ... By contrast, under the theft statute, the general rule is that value mea…
Authorities Cited
- Clark v. State, 746 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Ballesteros v. State, 994 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- A.D. v. State, 866 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- S.P. v. State, 884 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- T.B.S. v. State, 935 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)