Cleare v. State

I respectfully dissent.

Appellant contends on appeal that the evidence adduced at his trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction for grand larceny, because appellee, the State of Florida, failed to prove the value of the property taken was $100 or more, as required by § 811.021(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Appellant further contends that the evidence showed, at most, only an attempted petit larceny.

Appellee contends that there was sufficient competent evidence of the value of the stolen property to support the conviction and sentence for grand larceny.

As in criminal cases generally, the state has…