M.S.O., A CHILD, 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.
A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for grand theft of a laptop computer valued at approximately $600. The appellate court reversed the grand theft conviction and directed entry of judgment for the lesser included offense of petit theft, finding the evidence insufficient to prove the property's value exceeded $300 at the time of the theft.
The evidence was insufficient to establish a value of $300 or more at the time of the theft beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reversed the grand theft adjudication and directed entry of judgment for the lesser included offense of petit theft.
[1] To prove grand theft of the third degree, the state must establish that the value of the stolen property at the time of the theft was $300 or more.
[2] Market value of stolen property may be established through factors including original cost, usage, condition, quality, and depreciation.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Value means the market value of the property at the time and place of the offense”
Establishes the statutory definition of value required to prove grand theft.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.S.O. was charged with grand theft of the third degree for stealing a laptop computer. The property owner testified he purchased the laptop for $1,00…
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 Market Value Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, juvenile M.S.O., was adjudicated delinquent for grand theft. We reverse with directions to enter judgment for the lesser included offense of petit theft and for resentencing.
On a charge of grand theft of the third degree, the state is required to prove that the value of the stolen property at the time of the theft is $300 or more. § 812.014(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2009). “Value means the market value of the property at the time and place of the offense” § 812.012(10)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2009). In the absence of direct testimony as to market value, “proof may be established through the following factors: original market cost, manner in which the item has been used, its general condition and quality, and the percentage of depreciation since its purchase or construction.” Lucky v. State, 25 So.3d 691, 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Gilbert v. State, 817 So.2d 980, 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)).
In this case, the property owner testified that he purchased the laptop M.S.O. was charged with stealing for $1,000 four years prior to the theft. He estimated that $600 was an approximate “depreciated value” of the laptop at the time it was stolen, based on his use of “the IRS standard deduction of 15 percent a year for depreciation.” Given the nature of the property, we conclude this testimony was insufficient to establish a value of $300 or more at the time of the theft beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. (“Electrical components like televisions, computers, and stereo systems are subject to accelerated obsolescence because manufacturers are constantly releasing new, improved technology at lower prices.”). See also Austin v. State, 64 So.3d 139, 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (holding evidence insufficient to establish value of $300 or more where laptop computer was purchased for $1500 and stolen two years later, could be replaced with a “similar computer” for “a couple hundred dollars,” and “it would cost at least $500 or $600 to get a new laptop computer with the same programs”).
Accordingly, we reverse M.S.O.’s adjudication of delinquency for third degree grand theft and remand for the trial court to enter judgment for the lesser included offense of petit theft. § 924.34, Fla. Stat. (2011). As to the other issue raised on appeal, we affirm.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
TAYLOR, HAZOURI and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.K. v. State, 143 So. 3d 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…e, “ ‘proof may be established through the following factors: original market cost, manner in which the item has been used, its general condition and quality, and the percentage of depreciation since its purchase or construction.’ ” M.S.O. v. State, 73 So. 3d 842, 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Lucky v. State, 25 So. 3d 691, 692 (Fla. 4th.DCA 2010)). As to the first prong, “[o]ne’s competency to testify as to the value of stolen property is not so much a question of whether he owns the stolen property as…
Authorities Cited
- Gilbert v. State, 817 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Lucky v. State, 25 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Austin v. State, 64 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)