JOHNATHAN L. BELL, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Schultz v. State, 105 So. 3d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
  …uctantly conclude that we are required to reverse Mr. Schultz’s conviction for grand theft because of our supreme court’s rationale and holding in Marrero v. State, 71 So. 3d 881 (Fla.2011), as discussed in this court’s opinion in Colletti v. State, 74 So. 3d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). The application of this precedent to the facts established on the record of this case requires a determination that the minimum value necessary to establish grand theft was not met. Accordingly, we vacate the conviction for that…
• Sutton v. State, 128 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
  …“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); see Colletti v. State, 74 So. 3d 497, 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Where the value of the stolen property cannot be ascertained, “the trier of fact may find the value to be not less than a certain amount; if no such minimum value can be ascertained, the value is an amount less than $100.” §…
• G.B. v. State, 123 So. 3d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
  …certain” and not just a situation “of the State’s failure to present evidence of value (although capable of valuation).” Id. at 889. Absent impossibility, a “life experience” exception to determine value does not apply. Id. As in Colletti v. State, 74 So. 3d 497, 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), the State failed to establish and the record does not show that it was impossible to determine the value of the stolen property. Thus, the trier of fact could not determine a “minimum value” because valuation was not impossi…