A. Q. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

A. Q. v. State

884 So. 2d 412, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14189, 2004 WL 2147014

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 27, 2004

DocketNo. 1D04-1699

StatusPublished

This text of 884 So. 2d 412 (A. Q. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. Q. v. State, 884 So. 2d 412, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14189, 2004 WL 2147014 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from an order adjudicating appellant (A.Q.) delinquent for committing burglary to a dwelling and grand theft, appellant claims that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the market value of the items stolen by appellant (used clothing and used compact discs) was at least $300.00 on the date of the offense. See §§ 812.014(2)(c)l.; 812.012(10)(a) 1., Fla. Stat. (2003). We agree. Accordingly, we reverse appel[413]*413lant’s conviction and sentence for grand theft and remand for the entry of a conviction and sentence for petit theft of the second degree. See § 812.014(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). See also Pickett v. State, 839 So.2d 860, 861-62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), citing Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104, 108 (Fla.1974), receded from on other grounds, Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So.2d 968 (Fla.1980). We affirm without comment appellant’s unchallenged conviction for burglary of a dwelling.

REVERSED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

DAVIS, BROWNING and HAWKES, JJ., CONCUR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from an order adjudicating appellant (A.Q.) delinquent for committing burglary to a dwelling and grand theft, appellant claims that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the market value of the items stolen by appellant (used clothing and used compact discs) was at least $300.00 on the date of the offense. See §§ 812.014(2)(c)l.; 812.012(10)(a) 1., Fla. Stat. (2003). We agree. Accordingly, we reverse appel[413]*413lant’s conviction and sentence for grand theft and remand for the entry of a conviction and sentence for petit theft of the second degree. See § 812.014(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). See also Pickett v. State, 839 So.2d 860, 861-62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), citing Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104, 108 (Fla.1974), receded from on other grounds, Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So.2d 968 (Fla.1980). We affirm without comment appellant’s unchallenged conviction for burglary of a dwelling.

REVERSED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

DAVIS, BROWNING and HAWKES, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

884 So. 2d 412, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14189, 2004 WL 2147014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-q-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack