TIMOTHY O. TRIBBLE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Conviction for grand larceny reversed and remanded as petit larceny because the record contained no competent evidence of the stolen property's market value at the time of theft.
Competent evidence of the property's market value at the time of larceny is essential to support a grand larceny conviction, and its absence requires reversal and reduction to petit larceny.
[1] Competent evidence of the market value of property taken at the time of larceny is essential to support a grand larceny conviction; absence of such evidence requires redu…
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“Competent evidence as to the value of the property taken at the time of the larceny is essential.”
Court establishing the evidentiary requirement for grand larceny convictions.
Defendant was tried without a jury and convicted of grand larceny, but the record contained no competent evidence establishing the market value of the…
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 Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant-appellant was tried before the court without a jury and convicted of grand larceny.
In his second point on appeal, defendant-appellant argues and the prosecution concedes that the trial court erred in adjudicating the defendant guilty of grand larceny in the absence of any evidence as to the market value of the stolen object at the time of the theft. We agree.
Competent evidence as to the value of the property taken at the time of the larceny is essential. Smart v. State, Fla.App.1973, 274 So.2d 577. A search of the record on appeal reveals there is no competent evidence of the value of the property taken in the larceny.
*560Accordingly, the judgment and sen tence in this matter are reversed and set aside and the cause is remanded with directions to enter a judgment holding the defendant guilty of petit larceny. See Todd v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 187 So.2d 908. The record reflects that the appellant has served in excess of sixty days, the maximum sentence imposed by F.S. §§ 811.021 (3) and 775.082(3) (b) F.S.A., therefore upon remand we order further that the defendant be discharged and the mandate of this court is directed to be transmitted forthwith to the trial court.
We have considered appellant’s first poirit on appeal and find that to be without merit.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Airlift Int'l, Inc. v. Carr, 187 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Rain v. Smith, 274 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)