Douglas S. Livingston v. State

I dissent as to the affirmance of the convictions for grand theft. On de novo review, I conclude that this case is like Segal v. State, 98 So.3d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), and partial performance has negated any finding of theft. Moreover, I disagree with the majority’s statement that the state produced evidence of unauthorized use of funds or any willful misrepresentations to secure any funds. The type of representations which we found were sufficient to prove theft in Henry v. State, *1174133 So.3d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), are not present in this case.