RONNIE LYNN SHELTON, 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.
Appellant's convictions for burglary and possession of burglary tools were affirmed, but his grand larceny conviction was reduced to petit larceny because the state failed to prove the stolen property exceeded $100 in value.
A grand larceny conviction must be reduced to petit larceny when the state presents insufficient evidence of the property's value to meet the statutory threshold.
[1] Grand larceny conviction must be reduced to petit larceny when the state fails to present competent evidence that stolen property exceeded the statutory value threshold o…
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“Since there was no showing by means of competent evidence that the value of the items taken was $100 or more, appellant is entitled to have his conviction for grand larceny reduced to petit larceny.”
Court's explanation for reducing the larceny conviction
Appellant was convicted of burglary, possession of burglary tools, and grand larceny after taking a tool box, office equipment, and blasting material.…
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 Value Of Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged with burglary, possession of burglary tools, and grand larceny. He was convicted as charged on all three counts. The evidence was sufficient to support his convictions on the first two counts. However, the evidence adduced as to the value of the property taken under the larceny count was insufficient to prove grand larceny.
The evidence on this point showed that a tool box, certain office equipment, and two cases of blasting material were taken. The sole evidence adduced as to value related only to the value of the blasting material, which totalled $28.80. The jury was left to its own devices to determine the value of the rest of the items. Since there was no showing by means of competent evidence that the value of the items taken was $100 or more, appellant is entitled to have his conviction for grand larceny reduced to petit larceny. See Smart v. State, 274 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).
In view whereof, the judgments and sentences for burglary and possession of burglary tools herein are affirmed; but the judgment and sentence for grand larceny is vacated and the cause is remanded for entry of a judgment of guilt of petit larceny and the imposition of an appropriate sentence therefor. HOBSON, Acting C. J., and McNULTY and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alexander v. State, 380 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…se Rodriguez merely holds that in a competency hearing the court is required to enter a “formal adjudication” of competency pursuant to § 917.01, Fla.Stat., (1969), which controlled those proceedings at that time.2 And so also, in Marshall v. State, 351 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977), the Court held that under former Rule 3.210, Fla.R.Crim.P., (1972), a written order of competency was required, and again cited Emerson, supra. A fair reading of former § 917.01, Fla.Stat. (1969), and of former Rule 3.210, Fla.R…
-
Corbitt v. State, 744 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…incompetent and committed to a state hospital, and then subsequently is found competent, the trial court must enter a written order finding the defendant competent. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.212(c)7. However, as noted by this court in Marshall v. State, 351 So. 2d 88, 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), where the trial court has entered an oral finding that the defendant is competent, but no written order of competency has been entered, the proper remedy is to affirm the judgment and to remand the case to the trial court for…
-
White v. State, 548 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…cedure, provided that after a hearing in which the defendant is found competent to stand trial, the trial court “shall enter its order so finding.”3 We hold that this language requires a written order. In so holding, we agree with Marshall v. State, 351 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), wherein the Second District held that a written order was required by Rule 3.210(a)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and remanded the case for entry of a nunc pro tunc order. Although the rule construed in Marshall is an…
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
- Rain v. Smith, 274 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)