Aycock v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Aycock v. State

87 So. 3d 1259, 2012 WL 1859631, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8272

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 23, 2012

DocketNo. 4D10-4898

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 87 So. 3d 1259 (Aycock 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

Aycock v. State, 87 So. 3d 1259, 2012 WL 1859631, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8272 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This court has previously held that mere evidence of the purchase price of an electronic device is insufficient to establish its current value. Lucky v. State, 25 So.3d 691, 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). In the instant case, the only evidence offered to establish the value of a cell phone, which had been purchased a year and a half prior to the theft, was the owner’s testimony of the purchase price. As a result, the value of the cell phone at the time of the theft could not be established. Thus, the evidence was insufficient to prove grand theft. All other elements of theft were supported by sufficient evidence.

For the reasons set forth above, we reverse and remand to the trial court for entry of a judgment for petit theft in accordance with section 924.34, Florida Statutes (2006).

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This court has previously held that mere evidence of the purchase price of an electronic device is insufficient to establish its current value. Lucky v. State, 25 So.3d 691, 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). In the instant case, the only evidence offered to establish the value of a cell phone, which had been purchased a year and a half prior to the theft, was the owner’s testimony of the purchase price. As a result, the value of the cell phone at the time of the theft could not be established. Thus, the evidence was insufficient to prove grand theft. All other elements of theft were supported by sufficient evidence.

For the reasons set forth above, we reverse and remand to the trial court for entry of a judgment for petit theft in accordance with section 924.34, Florida Statutes (2006).

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 So. 3d 1259, 2012 WL 1859631, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aycock-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack