T.D., A CHILD
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
The state failed to prove the value of the stolen cell phone was at least $100, requiring reversal of the first-degree petit theft conviction and remand for resentencing under the second-degree petit theft statute.
[1] To prove the value of stolen property in a petit theft prosecution, the state must present either direct testimony of value or evidence of the original market cost, manne…
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“state failed to prove value of stolen property where it did not present direct testimony of value or, alternatively, evidence of: (1) original market cost; (2) manner in which property was used; (3) condition of property; and (4) percentage of depreciation of property since purchase”
Court citing C.G. v. State, 123 So. 3d 680, 681-82 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) for the evidentiary standard required to prove property value in theft cases.
T.D. was adjudicated guilty of battery and first-degree petit theft of $100 or more after an adjudicatory hearing. The trial court found the value of …
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 Second-Degree Petit Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
T.D., A CHILD, Appellant,
V.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Opinion filed September 13, 2019
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Sally D.M. Kest, Judge.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Case Nos. 5D18-773 5D18-1884
PER CURIAM.
After an adjudicatory hearing, T.D. was found guilty of battery and first-degree petit theft of $100 or more. She raises several issues on appeal, of which we find one to be meritorious.
The trial court erred in concluding that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the value of the victim's stolen cell phone was at least $100. See C.G. v. State, 123 So. 3d 680, 681-82 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (holding that state failed to prove value of stolen property where it did not present direct testimony of value or, alternatively, evidence of: (1) original market cost; (2) manner in which property was used; (3) condition of property; and (4) percentage of depreciation of property since purchase). On remand, the trial court is instructed to amend its disposition order to reflect that T.D. was found guilty under section 812.014(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2016), of second-degree petit theft. The trial court's order is otherwise affirmed.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED with instructions.
EVANDER, C.J., LAMBERT and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.