E.H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

E.H. v. State

869 So. 2d 1231, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3860, 2004 WL 591761

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 26, 2004·No. No. 2D03-0444·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

FULMER, Judge.

E.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. In D.H. v. State, 864 So.2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), we recently addressed the same issue in an appeal brought by a codefendant, and we agreed that the testimony was insufficient to meet the State’s burden of proof. Therefore, in accordance with our prior opinion in D.H., we reverse and remand for the trial court to reduce the grand theft to petit theft.

Reversed and remanded.

WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.

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

FULMER, Judge.

E.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. In D.H. v. State, 864 So.2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), we recently addressed the same issue in an appeal brought by a codefendant, and we agreed that the testimony was insufficient to meet the State’s burden of proof. Therefore, in accordance with our prior opinion in D.H., we reverse and remand for the trial court to reduce the grand theft to petit theft.

Reversed and remanded.

WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.

E.H. v. State, 869 So. 2d 1231, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3860, 2004 WL 591761 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

869 So. 2d 1231 (E.H. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related