Legal Opinion

D.H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 6, 2004No. 2D03-434PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FULMER, Judge.

D.H. was found guilty of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft of the third degree. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for the grand theft charge, arguing that the State failed to prove the value of the stolen property. We agree that the testimony was insufficient to meet the State’s burden of proof and, therefore, reverse and remand for the trial court to reduce the grand theft to petit theft.

The State was required to prove that the value of the stolen property at the time of the theft was $300 or more. See § 812.014(2)(c)(l), Fla. Stat. (2002); Pickett v. State,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Pickett v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003
  2. Weatherspoon v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
  3. I.T. v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2001
  4. Doane v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003
  5. Randolph v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Lucky v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2010
  2. R.J.K. v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006
  3. Davis v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2010
  4. White v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2008
  5. Carter v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API