ANGEL LUIS RIVERA, 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.
Angel Rivera appeals his grand theft conviction, arguing the State failed to present sufficient evidence of the fair market value of the stolen property at the time of the theft. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that Rivera failed to preserve the sufficiency-of-evidence challenge for appellate review by not raising it at trial.
The court affirmed Rivera's grand theft conviction because he failed to preserve the sufficiency-of-evidence challenge for appellate review by not raising it at trial. The contemporaneous objection rule applies to challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, and Rivera did not challenge the evidence concerning fair market value at any point below.
[1] A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence must be preserved for appellate review through a timely objection in the trial court.
[2] The contemporaneous objection rule applies to challenges concerning the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the value of stolen property.
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“The contemporaneous objection rule applies to challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that appellants must raise sufficiency challenges at trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRivera was charged with stealing various items from victims with an aggregate value of $300 or more. The victims testified they paid approximately $40…
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 Petit Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
Angel Rivera appeals his conviction of grand theft.1 Mr. Rivera contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove the value of the items taken.2 Because we find that this issue was not preserved for appellate review, we affirm.
Mr. Rivera was charged with stealing various items from the victims with an aggregate value of $300 or more. The victims testified that they paid approximately $400 for the stolen laptop computer five months prior to the theft, and between $300 and $400 for the stolen X-Box game console five years earlier. They also purchased a number of X-Box games for about $55 each, but did not testify about their value or condition. The State did not offer any testimony concerning the fair market value of the property taken at the time of the theft, and Mr. Rivera did not question the sufficiency of the evidence concerning the fair market value of the stolen property at any point below. Now, on appeal, Mr. Rivera argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of the fair market value of the stolen property and, as a result, his felony conviction should be reduced to the lesser offense of petit theft of the second degree. See Alvarez v. State, 56 So.3d 912 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); see also Smith v. State, 955 So.2d 1227, 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding that state is required to present competent evidence to prove value of stolen property at time of theft).
The contemporaneous objection rule applies to challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. See F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 229-30 (Fla.2003). With two exceptions, a defendant must preserve a claim of insufficiency of the evidence through a timely challenge in the trial court. The first exception is in death penalty cases, in which the supreme court’s review of the sufficiency of the evidence is required by rule. The second exception occurs when the evidence is insufficient to show that a crime was committed at all. *335 Id. Mr. Rivera is not a death-sentenced prisoner nor does he argue that no crime was committed. Rather, Mr. Rivera argues only that the evidence proves him guilty of petit, not grand theft. Because the matter was not preserved for appellate review, we must affirm Mr. Rivera’s grand theft conviction.
AFFIRMED.
MONACO and EVANDER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2003)
- Mulligan v. State, 955 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Alvarez v. State, 56 So. 3d 912 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Wilson v. State, 56 So. 3d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)