VERDALEN C. SPENCER, 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.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a grand larceny conviction because the value of the stolen property was not proven to be $100.00 or more.
Appellant was convicted of grand larceny for stealing copper wire. The evidence showed the theft of wire, but no proof of its market value exceeding $…
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 Petit Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Verdalen C. Spencer, was charged by an information with grand larceny under F.S. 1965, Section 811.021 (2), F.S.A. The information alleged that he stole copper wire belonging to Florida Power and Light Company on 29 July 1966 of a value in excess of $100.00.
The appellant was tried in Circuit Court in Martin County, Florida, on 7 February 1967, and a jury verdict of guilty of grand larceny was returned. A motion for a new trial was denied. This appeal is from the judgment and sentence of the circuit court entered on the verdict.
The issue here is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
There is competent substantial evidence in the record, some from eye witnesses, to support the jury’s conclusion that the appellant with others stole wire belonging to Florida Power and Light Company which cost $.572 per foot and, therefore, was guilty of larceny in some degree. For purposes of classifying the larceny as grand or petty, the value to be used is normally market value at the time of the theft. (See authorities cited in Spencer v. State, 217 So.2d 331, District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, opinion rendered November 26, 1968.) In such cases an essential element of the crime of grand larceny is the taking of property having a market value of $100.00 or more at the time of the theft. Here there was no evidence that the property taken had a market value of $100.00 or more at the time of the theft. For this reason the conviction for grand larceny is in error. Other attacks made by the appellant on the sufficiency of the evidence have been considered and in the opinion of the court are without merit.
In conformity to F.S. 1967, Section 924.34, F.S.A., we hereby reverse the judgment and vacate the sentence of the trial court with directions to the trial court to enter judgment of conviction for petty larceny and to impose sentence accordingly, taking into account the incarceration to which the appellant has been subjected under the improper judgment and sentence.
Reversed and remanded.
CROSS, J., and BOAHER, STEPHEN R., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ozzie Joseph Negron and Teresa Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1974)…re the allegedly stolen property was wire belonging to the Florida Power and Light Co. which cost $.572 per foot, but there was no evidence that all the wire taken had a market value of $100 at the time of the theft. Spencer v. State (Fla.App.1969), 217 So. 2d 332. Compare Guerrero v. State (Fla. 1974), 289 So. 2d 396. This Court has apparently never addressed the precise question presented in the instant case. The crucial inquiry concerns the meaning of the term, “market value.” Where the theft is from a de…
-
Rodriquez v. State, 443 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…1981) (“The value of the property taken must be established as an essential element of the crime of grand larceny.”) See also Butler v. State, 354 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Johnson v. State, 353 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Spencer v. State, 217 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Todd v. State, 187 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). The value or nature of the property stolen is such a distinct and separate element of grand larceny (grand theft) that if that element is alleged as being property of the peculia…
-
Ramos Cleare v. State, 321 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…mined, i. e., grand or petit larceny. For purposes of classifying the larceny as grand or petit, the value to be used is normally market value at the time of the theft. Platt v. State, Fla.App.1974, 291 So. 2d 96; Spencer v. State, Fla.App.1968, 217 So. 2d 332, and Todd v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So. 2d 908. Our review of the record in the instant appeal shows that the only testimony as to the value of the property stolen was as follows : “Q. What was inside these cases, do you know? “A. That he pick…
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
- Verdalen C. Spencer v. State, 217 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)