WILLIAM TURNER MARTIN, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed burglary conviction but reversed grand theft conviction due to insufficient evidence of value exceeding $300 threshold, remanding for petit theft conviction instead.
The State failed to prove the stolen items exceeded $300 in value, so the grand theft conviction cannot stand and must be reduced to petit theft.
[1] Value of stolen property must be established through direct testimony or other competent evidence of current value, not merely victim's testimony regarding original purch…
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 intelligence“evidence was insufficient to establish value of stolen cellular telephone at $100 or more, and thus was insufficient to support conviction for first-degree petit theft”
Court cited C.G. v. State for the principle that value must be proven through direct testimony and evidence of depreciation, not merely victim's estimate of original purchase price.
William Martin was convicted after jury trial of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. He appealed arguing the State failed to prove the value of st…
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 Value Of Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
-William Martin was convicted, after a jury trial, of- burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the grand theft charge because the State failed to prove that the value of the stolen items was over $300. We agree. See C.G. v. State, 123 So.3d 680, 681-82 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (holding that evidence was insufficient to establish value of stolen cellular telephone at $100 or more, and thus was insufficient to support conviction for first-degree petit theft, notwithstanding victim’s testimony that he paid approximately $200 for phone six months before theft, that he purchased case for phone and protective screen for glass right after purchasing it, and that phone was in good condition at time it was stolen; phone’s value was not so obvious as to defy contradiction, state did not attempt to establish value of cell phone through direct testimony, and state did not present evidence regarding depreciation in value).
Accordingly; we affirm Martin’s burglary conviction, but revérse Martin’s judgment and sentence for grand 'theft and remand-with instructions for the trial court to enter a judgment of guilt for petit theft. See Chappell v. State, 200 So.3d 159, 160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Smith v. State, 955 So.2d 1227, 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
EVANDER, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur,.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mulligan v. State, 955 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Figgs v. State, 123 So. 3d 680 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- Chappell v. State, 200 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)