MICHAEL SCHULTZ, 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.
Affirmed armed burglary conviction but reversed grand theft conviction due to insufficient proof of item value, requiring entry of petit theft conviction instead.
The State failed to prove the value of stolen items exceeded $300, so the grand theft conviction must be reversed and replaced with a petit theft conviction.
[1] The State must prove the value of stolen property meets the statutory threshold for grand theft; failure to establish value exceeding $300 requires reversal and entry of…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Schultz was convicted of armed burglary and grand theft after taking items during a burglary. The State did not establish that the stolen item…
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 Grand Theft Elements cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael Schultz was convicted of armed burglary and grand theft, and he appeals, raising three issues. Of the three issues we find merit in only the third, that the State failed to provide sufficient proof of the value of the items taken during the burglary to support the charge of third-degree grand theft (greater than $300 but less than $5000).1 See Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104, 108 (Fla.1974), receded from, on other grounds, Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So.2d 968 (Fla.1980). We affirm Mr. Schultz’s conviction for armed burglary, the subject of his first two issues. However, we reluctantly 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 offense and direct that a conviction for petit theft of the first degree2 be entered. On remand, Mr. Schultz shall be resentenced accordingly.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
SILBERMAN, C.J., and BLACK, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruilova v. State, 125 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…tate v. Bean, 36 So. 3d 116, 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). . See, e.g., James v. State, 936 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Cox v. State, 75 So. 3d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). . See, e.g., Oldham v. State, 113 So. 3d 963 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Fields v. State, 105 So. 3d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). .See ch. 96-248, Laws of Fla. . See, e.g., White v. State, 661 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Roob v. State, 572 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). . See, e.g., Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382, 385 (Fla.1979); Sears v. State, 920 S…
-
Riley Nathan Mitchell v. State, 135 So. 3d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…ble time after the offense.’ ” Id. at 888 (quoting § 812.012(10)(a)(l)). Here, the evidence of value only supports a conviction for first-degree petit theft. See § 812.014(2)(e) (value of $100 or more, but less than $300); see also Schultz v. State, 105 So. 3d 1280, 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (vacating conviction for grand theft and remanding for conviction for first-degree petit theft). Therefore, we affirm the conviction and sentence for burglary of an unoccupied building and vacate the conviction and sentenc…
-
K. M. v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)…l rights being implicated when that individual is searched—are effectively indistinguishable, whether the precipitating event is truancy or a mental health crisis. We think the conclusions reached in L.C. and A.B.S., as well as in [Fields v. State, 105 So. 3d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)], offer a more suitable framework to examine the Fourth Amendment's operation in cases such as these."). existed in this case. There was no medical emergency. K.M. was calm and cooperative and did not appear to be under the inf…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 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)
- Marrero v. State, 71 So. 3d 881 (Fla. 2011)
- Colletti v. State, 74 So. 3d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Bell v. State, 74 So. 3d 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)