GILBERT LEE RAYNOR, 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.
Conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny reversed and reduced to misdemeanor because the State failed to prove the market value of stolen items at the time of theft, as required by statute.
The State must prove the market value of stolen property at the time of the theft to support a conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny under section 810.01.
[1] To convict a defendant of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny under section 810.01, the State must prove by evidence the market value of the stolen…
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“It is essential, under section 810.01, to show that the perpetrator's intent at the time of the breaking was to steal property of the value of $100 or more by adducing proof of the market value at the time of the theft of the items taken.”
Court explaining the evidentiary requirement for grand larceny conviction
Raynor was convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit grand larceny. The only evidence of the items' value came from th…
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
PER CURIAM.
Upon review of the briefs and record on appeal we are of the opinion that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support a conviction of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a felony, to wit, grand larceny as proscribed by the then effective statute, section 810.01, Florida Statutes. In particular, the State failed to introduce evidence to demonstrate what the market value of the items taken was at the time of the theft. Platt v. State, 291 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). The only pertinent evidence in this record came from the victim’s son who identified the items as being those taken in the burglary, further indicating the purchase price for one of the items which had been purchased some three years earlier. It is essential, under section 810.01, to show that the perpetrator’s intent at the time of the breaking was to steal property of the value of $100 or more by adducing proof of the market value at the time of the theft of the items taken. Platt v. State, supra; Gamble v. State, 210 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). This, the State failed to do.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to wit, grand larceny, is reduced pursuant to sec. 924.34, Florida Statutes, to breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor and the cause remanded to the trial court for impo sition of sentence in accordance herewith. See Section 810.05, Florida Statutes.
MAGER, C. J., and CROSS and DOW-NEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marcum v. State, 379 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)…urder in the first degree are reversed; and the cause remanded to the trial court to enter judgments for murder in the second degree as to all defendants, and to pass sentence accordingly. Douglas v. State, 10 So. 2d 731 (Fla.1942); Raynor v. State, 341 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). McCORD and SMITH, Associate Judges, concur. . Hite v. State, 364 So. 2d 771, 773 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978): “[T]he clause [of Section 782.04(3), as amended 1974] ‘the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony shal…
-
J. M. v. State, 890 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…As such, the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the grand theft charge should have been granted. See D.H. v. State, 864 So. 2d 588, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Soderman v. State, 844 So. 2d 823, 823-24 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Raynor v. State, 341 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Accordingly, we reverse the finding that J.M. was guilty of grand theft, and remand with directions to find J.M. guilty of the lesser offense of petit theft and enter disposition accordingly. See Soderman, 844 So. 2d at 823-24…
Authorities Cited
- Gamble v. State, 210 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Platt v. State, 291 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)