BRIAN K. AYCOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2012-05-23
No. 4D10-4898
WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
87 So. 3d 1259 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2012) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Value Of Stolen Property Petit Theft Grand Theft

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Value Of Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This court has previously held that mere evidence of the purchase price of an electronic device is insufficient to establish its current value. Lucky v. State, 25 So.3d 691, 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). In the instant case, the only evidence offered to establish the value of a cell phone, which had been purchased a year and a half prior to the theft, was the owner’s testimony of the purchase price. As a result, the value of the cell phone at the time of the theft could not be established. Thus, the evidence was insufficient to prove grand theft. All other elements of theft were supported by sufficient evidence.

For the reasons set forth above, we reverse and remand to the trial court for entry of a judgment for petit theft in accordance with section 924.34, Florida Statutes (2006).

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Olivera v. State, 117 So. 3d 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
    …the property at the time and place of the offense[.]” § 812.012(10)(a)l., Fla. Stat. (2009). We have “previously held that mere evidence of the purchase price of an electronic device is insufficient to establish its current value.” Aycock v. State, 87 So. 3d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). See, e.g., Austin v. State, 64 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). The state, therefore, failed to prove the market value of the items was $100 or more at the time of the offense. §§ 812.012(10)(a)l., 812.014(2)(d), Fla. Stat.…
  • J.K.K. v. State, 92 So. 3d 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
    …hone charger which were stolen in the incident consisted solely of the owner’s testimony of the purchase price a year and a half prior to the incident. Such evidence is insufficient to establish the current value of these items. See Aycock v. State, 87 So. 3d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Lucky v. State, 25 So. 3d 691, 692-93 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). We remand for entry of adjudication of petit theft as authorized by section 924.34, Florida Statutes (2006). WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.…
  • Stepphone Freeman v. State, 110 So. 3d 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
    …dwelling. The only evidence of the stolen property’s value was the testimony of the owner as to its purchase price. However, this court has previously held that evidence of purchase price is insufficient to establish current value. Aycock v. State, 87 So. 3d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); see also Marrero v. State, 71 So. 3d 881, 891 (Fla.2011) (holding there is no “life experience” exception to the general rule that the State must establish the value of property)^ We reverse defendant’s conviction for gran…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw