LARRY MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; GARY RANDELL, 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.
This case involves two defendants convicted of grand larceny and breaking and entering. The appellate court found the evidence regarding the value of stolen goods insufficient to support the conviction, leading to a reversal and remand for resentencing on lesser included offenses.
No, the testimony regarding the value of the stolen property was insufficient to support the conviction for grand larceny.
“A. Eight hundred.”
This quote represents the entirety of the testimony regarding the value of the stolen items.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLarry Miller and Gary Randell were convicted of grand larceny and breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny. The sole testi…
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.
The only testimony relative to value during the trial of these defendants for grand larceny and breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit grand larceny is the following:
“Q. Would you tell the Jury what was missing?
A. A stereo, two TV’s, á Hallicrafter ship-to-shore radio, a watch, some records.
Q. All right. And what value did you place on all of this ?
A. Eight hundred.
Q. Eight hundred dollars ?
A. (Witness nodded affirmatively.)”
This is insufficient. Suarez v. State, 136 So.2d 367 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1962).
The other points raised by appellants are without merit. Pursuant to Florida Statutes § 924.34 (1967), F.S.A., judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with instruction to enter judgment of conviction on the lesser included offenses and to pass sentence accordingly.
LILES, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Platt v. State, 291 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…e positions but there does have to be a recognition that the standard of value is market value at the time of the theft. There are some cases in which there is simply no recognition of that standard. One of these is Miller v. State, Fla.App.2d 1968, 212 So. 2d 388. In that case the property stolen included a “stereo, two TV’s, a Hallicrafter ship-to-shore radio, a watch, and some records.” [*99] The only testimony as to value is as follows : “Q. All right. And what value did you place on all this ? A. Eight…1 / 2
-
Singleton v. State, 258 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…tate may file petition for rehearing is reduced to five days. Reversed and remanded. LILES, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur. . Suarez v. State, Fla.App.2d 1962, 136 So. 2d 367, and eases therein cited; see also Miller v. State, Fla.App.2d 1968, 212 So. 2d 388. . Fla.App.3d 1971, 257 So. 2d 276. . This statute was amended by Laws of Florida 1970, c. 70-339, § 161, in a respect not here material. . Wright v. State, Fla.App.1st 1971, 251 So. 2d 890. . Catlett v. Chestnut, 1933, 107 Fla. 498, 146 So. 241…
-
Smart v. State, 274 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…to enter judgments of not guilty and discharge appellant therefrom. Reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded for further proceedings in accordance herewith. HOBSON, A. C. }., and BOARDMAN, J., concur. . Cf., Miller v. State (Fla.App.1968), 212 So. 2d 388; Suarez v. State (Fla.App. 1962), 136 So. 2d 367; and Johnson v. State (Fla.App.1958), 102 So. 2d 412. . His contention here that the confessions were obtained in violation of the Miranda rule is without merit. See, James v. State (Fla.App.1972), 2…
Authorities Cited
- Jordan v. State, 136 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)