CARLOS JOSE OLIVERA, 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.
Appellant was convicted of burglary of a dwelling, possession of burglary tools, and grand theft of a dwelling. The court affirmed the burglary and tool possession convictions but reversed the grand theft conviction, finding insufficient evidence of the stolen property's market value at the time of the offense.
The court reversed the grand theft conviction because the state failed to prove the market value of the items was $100 or more at the time of the offense. Mere evidence of the purchase price of electronic devices is insufficient to establish their current market value. The court directed the trial court to adjudicate appellant guilty of the lesser-included offense of second-degree petit theft.
[1] Convictions for burglary of a dwelling and possession of burglary tools are affirmed.
[2] Evidence of the purchase price of an electronic device is insufficient to establish its current market value.
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 legal standard for determining property value in theft cases under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was tried for burglary of a dwelling, possession of burglary tools, and grand theft of a dwelling. The victim testified that she paid approx…
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 was convicted of burglary of a dwelling, possession of burglary tools, and grand theft of a dwelling. We affirm the convictions for burglary of a dwelling and possession of burglary tools without comment. We reverse the conviction for grand theft of a dwelling, as we find that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal regarding the evidence of the value of the stolen property. As to that count, we remand for entry of a judgment and sentence for second-degree petit theft.
At trial, the victim testified that she paid “around fourteen, fifteen hundred” for the stolen laptop, which was “approximately two years old,” and around $130 each for the stolen camera and iPod, which were both less than six months old. “Value means the market value of 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. (2009). As a result, we reverse the conviction for grand theft and direct the trial court to adjudicate appellant guilty of the lesser-included offense of second-degree petit theft,1 and to resentence appellant accordingly.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
WARNER, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
G.B. v. State, 123 So. 3d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…perty. Thus, the trier of fact could not determine a “minimum value” because valuation was not impossible. See id. at 500. Without evidence of value, the trial court should have reduced the offense to second-degree petit theft. See Olivera v. State, 117 So. 3d 433, 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (reversing grand theft of a dwelling conviction and directing entry of a judgment for second-degree pet-it theft when the stolen property consisted of a two-year-old laptop that was purchased for $1400 to $1500 and a less th…
-
M.K. v. State, 143 So. 3d 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…cannot be ascertained,” which is “completely unrelated ... [to] the State’s failure to present evidence of value (although capable of valuation).” Marrero v. State, 71 So. 3d 881, 888-89 (Fla.2011) (emphasis in original); see also Olivera v. State, 117 So. 3d 433, 434 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (noting that section 812.012(10)(b) is not a mere alternative to [*432] establishing market or replacement value, but rather may only be applied if “the value of the property cannot be ascertained”) (emphasis in origina…
Authorities Cited
- Marrero v. State, 71 So. 3d 881 (Fla. 2011)
- Aycock v. State, 87 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Austin v. State, 64 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)