LONNIE FRITTS, 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.
Lonnie Fritts appeals his grand theft conviction, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding the value of stolen property. The court reverses, finding the property owner's testimony about value was merely speculative and insufficient to prove the $300 threshold required for a felony, and remands for conviction on the lesser included offense of petit theft.
The court reversed the grand theft conviction and remanded for conviction on the lesser included offense of petit theft, holding that a property owner's mere guess or uninformed estimate of property value is insufficient to establish value beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the equivocal and uncertain testimony here did not meet that standard.
[1] Evidence of the purchase price and age of a stolen item, without more, is insufficient to establish its market value at the time of theft.
[2] Proof of market value of stolen property may be established through factors including original market cost, manner of use, general condition and quality, and percentage o…
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“an owner is generally presumed as competent to testify to the value of his stolen property”
Establishes that property owners can testify to value, but this competency is not absolute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFritts was convicted of grand theft for unlawfully obtaining a television, DVD/VCR combination, and stereo set. The property owner (Cappelletti) testi…
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 Judgment Of Acquittal Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Lonnie Fritts appeals his conviction for grand theft, a felony of the third degree. Because evidence of value was insufficient to prove the felony beyond a reasonable doubt, we reverse with directions to enter judgment for the lesser included offense of petit theft, and to resentence him accordingly.
“We review de novo the trial court’s denial of a motion for [judgment of acquittal], to determine solely whether the evidence is legally sufficient.” Robinson v. State, 986 So.2d 1164, 1166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (citing Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 803 (Fla.2002); Jones v. State, 790 So.2d 1194, 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (en banc)). “The legal test for determining whether a JOA should be granted is “whether after all conflicts in the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom have been resolved in favor of the verdict on appeal, there is substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment.’ ” Id. (quoting Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120, 1123 (Fla.1981)). In the present case, the state had the burden of proving, inter alia, that the value of the property Mr. Fritts unlawfully obtained was $300 or more. See § 812.014(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2007).
“Value means the market value of the property at the time and place of the offense ....” § 812.012(10)(a)l., Fla. Stat. (2007). The value of tangible personal property may be proved with evidence of the original purchase price, together with the percentage or amount of depreciation since the property’s purchase, its manner of use, and its condition and quality. See Pickett v. State, 839 So.2d 860, 861-62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104, 108 (Fla.1974), receded from on other grounds, Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So.2d 968 (Fla.1980)). Here, the property owner’s testimony as to the value of a television (“probably worth a hundred bucks now”), a DVD/VCR combination (“[a]bout a hundred fifty bucks, maybe”), and a stereo set (“[a]bout $200”) was equivocal and uncertain. The property owner did testify to what he paid to purchase two of the items, and to when he had acquired the television, but this testimony did not establish the value of any of the items at the time of the theft beyond a *432reasonable doubt, considering the nature of the property. See Lucky v. State, 25 So.3d 691, 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“Electrical components like televisions, computers, and stereo systems are subject to accelerated obsolescence....”).
“[A]n owner is generally presumed as competent to testify to the value of his stolen property.” Taylor v. State, 425 So.2d 1191, 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). But a property owner’s mere guess at, or uninformed estimate of, the value of his property is insufficient, without more, to establish its value beyond a reasonable doubt. See Sellers v. State, 838 So.2d 661, 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (citing Gilbert v. State, 817 So.2d 980, 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)). Mr. Cappelletti, the owner of the property at issue here, conceded on cross-examination that he had guessed at the values to which he testified.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 924.34, Florida Statutes (2010), we reverse the conviction and sentence for felony grand theft, and remand with directions to enter judgment for the lesser included offense of petit theft, a misdemeanor; and to resen-tence appellant accordingly. See § 812.014(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007). ’
Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
PADOVANO and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anthony Keith Council v. State, 206 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…judgment of acquittal de novo. Sellers v. State, 838 So. 2d 661, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). So long as the State introduced “ ‘substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment,’ ” the verdict will not be disturbed. Fritts v. State, 58 So. 3d 430, 431 (Fla. 2011) (quoting Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120, 1123 (Fla. 1981)). When a defendant is charged with theft over a specific amount, the element of value is an essential element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Cofield v.…
-
Austin v. State, 64 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…value of tangible personal property may be proved with evidence of the original purchase price, together with the percentage or amount of depreciation since the property’s purchase, its manner of use, and its condition and quality.” Fritts v. State, 58 So. 3d 430, 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citation omitted). The property owner testified that his parents paid about $1500 for the laptop computer which was stolen two years later. When asked how much it would cost to replace it with a similar computer, the prope…
-
Zanterrial Dejohn Carter v. State, 238 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…alue of tangible personal property may be proved with evidence of the original purchase price, together with the percentage or amount of depreciation since the property's purchase, its manner of use, and its condition and quality." Fritts v. State , 58 So. 3d 430, 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). A "mere guess at, or uninformed estimate of" the value of stolen property is insufficient, absent other proof, to establish value beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Testimony approximating the value of property, coupled with a…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002)
- Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)
- Honorable Robert A. Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1980)
- Ozzie Joseph Negron and Teresa Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1974)
- Jones v. State, 790 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Taylor v. State, 425 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Gilbert v. State, 817 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Jacquelyn Postma v. State, 839 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Lucky v. State, 25 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Darst v. State, 838 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)